 |
 |
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
le to Claimant, these findings are amply supported by substantial evidence in the certified record of this case. See N.T. 8/22/00 at 17-18; N.T. 1/29/01 at 18-19; N.T. 8/20/01 at 18-20; N.T. 10/20/00 at 31-32. As a result, the WCJ did not err in determining that Employer had failed to sustain its burden of proof requiring the termination of Claimant's compensation benefits. See Jordan; Moltzen.
Employer next claims that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ's decision because Claimant failed to sustain her burden of proof warranting the reinstatement of compensation benefits. Specifically, Employer again argues that as Dr. Welch testified that Claimant 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 reinstating compensation beyond that date.
Generally, a claimant seeking the reinstatement of compensation benefits, following the suspension of those benefits, must prove that: (1) through no fault of her own, the claimant's disability, i.e., earning power, is again adversely affected by the work-related injury, and (2) the disability which gave rise to the original claim, in fact, continues. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Laubach), 563 Pa. 313, 760 A.2d 378 (2000); Stevens v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Consolidation Coal Co.), 563 Pa. 297, 760 A.2d 369 (2000); Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments, 526 Pa. 25, 584 A.2d 301 (1990). Where a claimant seeks the reinstatement of suspended benefits, no causal connection between his current condition and the work-related injury must be established because the causal connection is presumed, and the claimant must only show that while her disability has continued, her loss of earnings has recurred. Bethlehem Steel Corp.; Stevens.
In addition, " iven the nature of suspension status, which actually acknowledges a continuing medical injury, and suspends benefits only because the claimant's earning power is currently not affected by the injury, the testimony of claimant alone could easily satisfy burden of establishing that work-related injury continues.." Latta v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Latrobe Die Casting Co.), 537 Pa. 223, 227, 642 A.2d 1083, 1085 (1994) (emphasis in original). Moreover, where, as here, a claimant is able to perform the duties of her pre-injury job, the employer is still required to show that work is available in order to preclude the reinstatement of compensation benefits. Fells v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Caterpillar Tractor Co.), 552 A.2d 334 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
As noted above, in the instant case, the WCJ specifically found as fact that Claimant has continued to have back complaints, that she was released to return to work and was willing to return to work following her surgery, and that Employer never offered her employment. See WCJ Decision at 4. When viewed in a light most favorable to Claimant, these findings are amply supported by substantial evidence in the certified record of this case. See N.T. 1/7/00 at 33-34; N.T. 8/22/00 at 14; N.T. 1/29/01 at 19-20; N.T. 8/20/01 at 18-20; N.T. 10/28/02 at 16. As a result, the Board did not err in affirming the WCJ's determination that Claimant was entitled to the reinstatement of her compensation benefits. See e.g., Fells, 552 A.2d at 336 (" y entering into a suspension agreement, an employer concedes that the claimant's disability is continuing. Therefore, the only way in which an employer can relieve its liability is by offering suitable work to the claimant, or by successfully filing a termination petition, in which case the employer has the burden of proving that the claimant's disability has ceased. Employer
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.
|
|