 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wesbury United Methodist Community v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board9/29/2005
ting the termination of Claimant's compensation benefits. Specifically, Employer contends that as Claimant's own medical expert, Dr. Welch, testified that she had made a "full functional recovery" as of her last office visit on July 5, 2000, and as Claimant stipulated to this fact, the WCJ erred in failing to terminate compensation benefits as of that date.
Initially, we note that this Court's scope of review is limited to determining whether there has been a violation of constitutional rights, errors of law committed, a violation of Board procedures, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Lehigh County Vo-Tech School v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Wolfe), 539 Pa. 322, 652 A.2d 797 (1995). "Substantial evidence" is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id.; Waldameer Park, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Morrison), 819 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); Hoffmaster v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Senco Products, Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). As the factfinder in workers' compensation proceedings, the WCJ may accept the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. Jordan v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Consolidated Electrical Distributors), 550 Pa. 232, 704 A.2d 1063 (1998).
In addition, in performing a substantial evidence analysis, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the WCJ. Waldameer Park, Inc.; Hoffmaster; American Refrigerator Equipment Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Jakel), 377 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). Moreover, in a substantial evidence analysis where both parties present evidence, it is immaterial that there is evidence in the record supporting a factual finding contrary to that made by the WCJ; rather, the pertinent inquiry is whether there is any evidence which supports the WCJ's factual finding. Waldameer Park, Inc.; Hoffmaster; Grabish.
An employer seeking to terminate workers' compensation benefits bears the burden of proving that the employee's disability has ceased. Udvari v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (USAir, Inc.), 550 Pa. 319, 705 A.2d 1290 (1997); Jordan. An employer satisfies this burden of proof if its expert unequivocally testifies that it is his opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the claimant is fully recovered, can return to work without restrictions and that there are no objective medical findings which either substantiate the claims of pain or connect them to the work-related injury. Udvari.
However, " here a WCJ finds that the claimant continues to experience pain attributable to the work injury, the injury has not fully resolved and the termination of benefits is improper. Instead, the suspension of benefits may be appropriate if medical testimony establishes that the claimant can return to work despite the pain." Jordan, 550 Pa. at 239, 704 A.2d at 1066. Moreover, the WCJ may give more credence to the claimant's testimony regarding continuing pain than to a doctor's testimony. Giant Eagle, Inc. . v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Chambers), 635 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993); Hygrade Food Products v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Royster), 437 A.2d 89 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981); American Refrigerator Equipment Co.
As noted above, in the instant case, the WCJ specifically found as fact that Claimant has continued to have back complaints, that Dr. Welch's opinion that she has not made a full recovery corroborates her continued back complaints, and that Claimant has not fully recovered from back surgery and her work-related injury. See WCJ Decision at 4. When viewed in a light most favorab
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|