 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gifford v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board1/30/2002
Patricia Gifford (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed a decision of a workers' compensation judge (WCJ) granting the termination petition of Willow Lake (Employer). We affirm.
The WCJ found the following relevant facts. Claimant, employed by Employer as a nursing assistant, suffered a work-related injury to the neck and back on August 1, 1992. Following the grant of her claim petition, Claimant began receiving temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $225 per week. On February 17, 1998, Employer filed a termination petition alleging that Claimant had fully recovered from her work-related injuries as of February 2, 1998. The matter was heard before the WCJ. Employer presented the deposition testimony of Ronald Horvath, M.D., and Claimant presented the deposition testimony of Marie A. Limberakis, D.O., and testified on her own behalf.
Dr. Horvath, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, examined Claimant on February 2, 1998 and reviewed various medical records. He opined that Claimant had fully recovered from her soft tissue injuries arising from the August 1, 1992 work incident, and that any problems she currently suffers from are unrelated to the work injuries but are caused by her age and weight. Dr. Horvath also testified that Claimant showed positive Waddell signs indicating symptom magnification. Although Dr. Horvath did not examine Claimant's most recent MRI or reviewed the records of Claimant's treating physician, Dr. Limberakis, the WCJ did not find these matters to be consequential in light of Dr. Horvath's examination of Claimant, his review of other medical records and MRIs, and his credible testimony.
Dr. Limberakis, a board certified family practitioner, testified that Claimant remained disabled from her work-related injury because of a residual lumbar sprain and strain, a disc herniation, and peripheral neuropathy. The WCJ noted, however, that there was no evidence of a causal relationship between Claimant's peripheral neuropathy and the work injuries. The WCJ further noted that although Claimant's latest MRI revealed a disc herniation, this finding was not present in any of Claimant's previous MRIs. The WCJ determined that Dr. Limberakis' testimony was less credible and persuasive than that of Dr. Horvath. The WCJ accepted Dr. Horvath's testimony whenever it conflicted with that of Dr. Limberakis.
Claimant testified that she continues to experience pain, together with numbness and tingling in her legs that would occasionally cause her to fall. Although the WCJ accepted as credible Claimant's testimony regarding her pain and neuropathy, he rejected as not credible her conclusion that these problems are related to the 1992 work injury.
Based on the foregoing credibility determinations, the WCJ concluded that Claimant had fully recovered from her work injuries as of February 2, 1998, and accordingly granted Employer's termination petition. The Board affirmed, and this petition for review followed.
This Court's scope of review is limited to determining whether the WCJ's necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence or whether an error of law or a constitutional violation occurred. Columbo v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Hofmann), 638 A.2d 477 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). The WCJ is the sole arbiter of the credibility and the weight of testimony and other evidence, and he or she is free to reject or accept the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. Id. So long as the findings of the WCJ are supported by substantial evidence, they must be accepted as conclusive on appeal. Id.; Dancison v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|