Steets v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board10/31/2005
Kristina Steets petitions this court for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the decision of a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) granting a petition to modify compensation benefits filed by K-Mart Corporation and Cambridge Integrated Services (collectively, employer).
On March 17, 1998, Steets sustained a work-related injury to her right knee while working as a customer service representative for K-Mart. She then received total disability benefits by way of a notice of compensation payable. On July 12, 2002, employer filed a modification petition, alleging that, as of April 18, 2002, Steets' total disability had become a complete loss of use of her right leg for all practical intents and purposes.
Thereafter, in support of its modification petition, employer adduced the deposition testimony of Leonard Kamen, D.O., who is board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and who examined Steets on April 18, 2002. Dr. Kamen diagnosed Steets as having "complex regional pain syndrome of the right lower extremity[,]" WCJ's opinion (circulated February 27, 2004), Finding of Fact No. 6 at 5, and further "concluded that [Steets'] permanent right lower extremity injury resulted in a permanent loss of use of the right lower extremity for all intents and purposes." Id. at 6. Moreover, the WCJ found, based on Dr. Kamen's testimony that, " s a result of the complex regional pain syndrome, [Steets] suffered gait and mobility dysfunction, a narcotic dependency, contractures of the right knee, right ankle and right foot along with depression, anxiety, denial and anger." Id. at 5. In defense of the petition, Steets testified on her own behalf and adduced the deposition testimony of Robert L. Knobler, M.D., Ph.D., her treating physician and a board-certified neurologist, who also diagnosed her with complex regional pain syndrome. While Dr. Knobler believed that Steets' injury was permanent, he did not think that she had suffered a complete loss of use of her right lower extremity.
The WCJ credited Dr. Kamen's medical opinion and rejected Dr. Knobler's opinion. Although she found Steets' testimony credible, she also found that some of her testimony supported the assertion that she has lost the use of her right lower extremity. Accordingly, the WCJ concluded that employer "has sustained its burden of proving that [Steets'] work related injury resolved into a specific loss of the right lower extremity as of April 18, 2002[.]" Id. at 10, Conclusion of Law No. 2. The WCJ then ordered employer "to pay [Steets] specific loss benefits for the duration of four hundred and thirty-five weeks as of April 18, 2002" and further provided that employer "is entitled to a credit for any indemnity benefits it has paid [Steets] since April 18, 2002." See WCJ's order (circulated February 27, 2004). Steets appealed the WCJ's decision to the Board, which affirmed.
On appeal to this court, Steets asserts that employer failed to meet its burden of proof on the modification petition. In particular, she relies on Wise v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 810 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), for the proposition that the determination of a specific loss required more than a finding that the claimant could not perform his occupation, and Conley v. Allegheny County, 200 A. 287 (Pa. Super. 1938), for the principle that a finding as to whether the claimant had "permanently lost the use of her leg for all practical purposes" meant "for any employment for which she is otherwise mentally and physically qualified[.]" Id. at 251. Steets contends that, contrary to this established case law, Dr. Kamen's credited medical testimony does not es
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|