IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Charles Mecca, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 132 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: June 12, 2015

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Procura Management, Inc. :

and Zenith Insurance), :

Respondents :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: September 23, 2015

Charles Mecca (Claimant) petitions for review of an adjudication of 

the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the Workers’ 

Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) denial of his claim for a disabling work injury. In 

doing so, the Board determined that Claimant failed to prove he sustained a work 

injury that resulted in a loss of earning power. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Claimant worked for Procura Management, Inc. (Employer) for 11 

years as a vocational case manager. On February 25, 2011, Claimant injured his 

back as he bent down to retrieve a case file from his vehicle and reported the injury 

to Employer. On March 8, 2011, Employer issued a medical only notice of 

compensation payable (NCP) describing the injury as a “Back Strain/Sprain.” 
2

Reproduced Record at 32 (R.R. ___). Claimant continued working his regular job 

until he was laid off on August 23, 2012.

In September 2012, Claimant reported to Employer that the February 

25, 2011, incident caused a disabling head and back injury. On September 20, 

2012, Employer issued a notice of compensation denial (NCD) stating that 

Claimant reported an injury to his back and head described as “[p]ain, 

confusion/amnesia,” and declining to pay benefits because Claimant “did not suffer 

a work-related injury.” R.R. 35. 

On October 24, 2012, Claimant filed a claim petition alleging that he 

had sustained a low back compression fracture and injuries to his head, left 

shoulder and arm in the February 25, 2011, incident. Claimant sought total 

disability benefits as of August 24, 2012. Employer filed an answer denying the 

allegation that Claimant had suffered a work injury to his head or shoulder and 

asserting that the acknowledged work injury did not cause a wage loss; Claimant

was laid off for economic reasons.

The petition was assigned to a WCJ, who held a hearing. Both 

Claimant and Employer attended and presented evidence.

Claimant testified in support of his claim. As a full-time vocational 

case manager, Claimant reviewed the files of injured workers, met with them and 

their attorneys for vocational interviews, did labor market surveys, helped with job 

placements, and occasionally testified as a vocational witness. Claimant worked 

from his home in Scranton. Claimant testified that a case file weighed between 20 

and 25 pounds, which he had to carry with him for meetings and hearing 

appearances.
3

On February 25, 2011, Claimant drove to York, Pennsylvania to meet 

with an injured worker and his attorney. Claimant got out of his car and bent down 

to retrieve the case file from the passenger seat. Claimant testified that when he 

did so, he felt pain in his back and left leg that was so intense it caused him to jerk 

backwards and hit his back and head on the car door. Claimant was unsure 

whether he had also hurt his left shoulder in the incident. Claimant proceeded with 

the appointment and drove himself home. He then e-mailed Hally Ley in 

Employer’s human resources department, informing her of the incident and the 

pain in his back and leg.

On March 10, 2011, Claimant sought medical treatment from his 

long-time family doctor, Dr. Anthony Perry. Claimant testified that he described 

the February incident to Dr. Perry and reported constant back and leg pain and an 

episode of confusion. Claimant could not explain why Dr. Perry’s March 10, 

2011, office notes documented thoracic and chest pain but nothing about low back 

or leg pain or a head injury. Nor could Claimant explain why Dr. Perry’s notes did 

not document any complaint of confusion until September 1, 2011. Claimant 

testified that he saw Dr. Perry many times for his back and leg pain between March 

10, 2011, and September 6, 2012. The first record of low back and leg pain in Dr. 

Perry’s notes was September 6, 2012; Claimant denied that this was the first time 

he made these complaints to Dr. Perry.

Claimant continued to work, in spite of his physical complaints. 

Because he could no longer carry the case files, Claimant had to summarize files. 

During his drives to meetings, he had to stop to walk around and relieve his pain. 

Claimant had to reschedule some meetings because of his pain.
4

In August 2012, Employer assigned Claimant to cover nursing 

appointments in Philadelphia. On August 23, 2012, after four days of this new 

assignment, Claimant was laid off. Claimant disputed Employer’s stated reason 

for laying him off, i.e., lack of work. Claimant stated that Employer did not lay off 

any other vocational employees in August 2012 and hired 11 new employees the 

same week Claimant was laid off. 

Claimant testified that he still suffers pain in his back that extends

down his left leg. This pain has limited his ability to perform his job as a

vocational case manager. Claimant acknowledged that Dr. Perry did not impose 

any job restrictions until September 21, 2012, when, at Claimant’s request, Dr. 

Perry gave him a note restricting him from driving. Claimant has not worked 

anywhere since being laid off.

Claimant presented the medical deposition of Joseph J. Chun, D.O., 

who is board certified in pain and rehabilitation medicine. Dr. Chun began treating 

Claimant on October 17, 2012, for the injuries sustained in the February 25, 2011, 

incident. Dr. Chun’s physical examination revealed pain and restricted range of 

motion of the lumbosacral spine, ankle weakness and a left shoulder impingement. 

A lumbar MRI from October 11, 2012, showed a small central disc herniation and 

annular tear at L4-5. Dr. Chun ordered an EMG and nerve conduction study that, 

in his opinion, showed left lumbar radiculopathy. The MRI also showed a mild 

non-acute compression fracture at L3, which Dr. Chun testified was not workrelated.

Based on Claimant’s history, the physical examination and the 

radiographic test results, Dr. Chun diagnosed Claimant’s work injuries as an L4-5 

disc herniation and tear causing lumbar radiculitis, left shoulder rotator cuff 
5

syndrome and tendinitis, and post-concussive syndrome with occasional confusion 

status post head trauma.1 Dr. Chun opined that these injuries were caused by 

Claimant’s February 2011 work injury because that is when Claimant began to 

experience symptoms; Dr. Chun assumed that the history provided to him by 

Claimant was accurate. Dr. Chun opined that Claimant’s work injuries limited him 

to a light-duty position, such as vocational counselor, so long as he did not move

case files.

Aside from one note dated September 21, 2012, Dr. Chun did not 

have any other records from Claimant’s original treating physician, Dr. Perry. 

When presented with Dr. Perry’s records during the deposition, Dr. Chun

acknowledged that they did not mention back and leg pain until September 6, 

2012, after Claimant had been laid off. None referred to a head or left shoulder 

injury.

Employer submitted the medical deposition of Robert M. Mauthe, 

M.D., who is board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation and did an 

independent medical examination of Claimant on February 5, 2013. The physical 

examination was normal except for adhesive capsulitis in the left shoulder, which 

Dr. Mauthe did not link to a work injury because Claimant did not tell him he 

injured his shoulder at work. Dr. Mauthe reviewed Dr. Perry’s medical records, 

which reported chest and thoracic pain but not low back, head or shoulder pain on 

March 10, 2011. Dr. Perry ordered medical tests that showed spinal degeneration 

and osteoporosis. Dr. Mauthe reviewed the October 11, 2012, lumbar MRI and 

opined that Claimant has degenerative changes at every level but no traumatic disc 

 

1 Dr. Chun testified that he never assessed Claimant’s mental status because he was not treating 

him for a head injury.
6

herniation or annular tear. Dr. Mauthe also reviewed the EMG and testified that it 

does not show a radiculopathy. Having found no signs of an injury other than an 

upper back strain which had resolved, Dr. Mauthe opined that Claimant needed no 

work restrictions.

Employer presented the deposition testimony of Lisa Zecca, who 

oversees Employer’s vocational work in Pennsylvania and other states. Zecca 

hired Claimant in 2001 and was his direct supervisor. She gave Claimant good 

performance evaluations and considered him a valuable employee. In early 2011, 

Employer had one part-time and three full-time vocational case managers, 

including Claimant. Zecca testified that between April 2011 and August 2012, 

Employer’s vocational referrals dropped by 40 to 50 percent. Because Claimant’s 

case file count was so low, Zecca assigned him to Employer’s medical case 

management department in Philadelphia in late June 2012. In August 2012, 

Employer was forced to lay off Claimant and the part-time case manager because 

of dwindling business. Employer again reduced staff in March 2013, both

vocational case managers and administrative personnel. Zecca disputed 

Claimant’s allegation that 11 new employees were hired before his layoff. 

Employer has not hired any new employees in the vocational department, except 

for one part-time employee in Ohio.

Zecca did not know that Employer had issued a medical only NCP for 

a February 2011 injury. Zecca testified that Claimant never asked for a restricted 

job or presented a medical note for such a restriction. Zecca testified that the 

decision to lay off Claimant was due to lack of available work.

Employer presented the deposition testimony of Mary-Elizabeth 

McDade, Employer’s vice president of case management and Zecca’s supervisor. 
7

McDade, who was involved in the decision to lay off Claimant, confirmed that it 

was because Employer’s vocational business was declining. McDade did not 

know that Claimant had a work injury and, thus, it played no role in the decision to 

lay off Claimant. McDade acknowledged that Claimant had mentioned to her in a 

February 26, 2011, e-mail that he had hurt his back, but he did not tell her it was 

work-related.

Finally, Employer presented the deposition testimony of Jennifer 

Hinkel, who works in human resources and confirmed that Claimant was laid off 

due to lack of work. At the time of Claimant’s work injury, Hally Ley handled 

work injury claims, but she left the company in the spring of 2012. When he 

learned of his impending layoff, Claimant forwarded Hinkel several e-mails 

between himself and Ley from February through April 2011.2In the e-mails, 

Claimant described the February 2011 incident; stated that his doctor had ordered 

x-rays and a bone density scan; and asked what he should do about his medical 

expenses. On August 16, 2012, Claimant e-mailed Hinkel asking about his 

medical bills, and Hinkel provided the name of Employer’s workers’ compensation 

carrier. Hinkel testified that Claimant had never raised his need for medical 

treatment or a work restriction before learning that he would be laid off. 

The WCJ rejected the testimony of Claimant and Dr. Chun and 

credited the testimony of Dr. Mauthe, Zecca, McDade and Hinkel.3 The WCJ 

found that Claimant’s work-related back strain did not cause a wage loss. Dr. 

 

2 Claimant attached the e-mails between Ley and himself to Hinkel’s deposition.

3

The WCJ has complete authority over questions of credibility, conflicting medical evidence and 

evidentiary weight. Sherrod v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Thoroughgood, Inc.), 

666 A.2d 383, 385 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
8

Perry’s notes did not record an injury to Claimant’s head, left shoulder or low 

back, or radicular leg pain. The credible testimony of Zecca, McDade and Hinkel 

established that Claimant was laid off because of a downturn in Employer’s 

business. Based on these facts, the WCJ concluded that Claimant failed to prove 

that he sustained a disabling work injury on February 25, 2011, and denied the 

claim petition. Claimant appealed, and the Board affirmed. Claimant then 

petitioned for this Court’s review.4

On appeal, Claimant argues that his claim petition should have been 

granted because the record established a loss of earning power caused by the work 

injury. In holding otherwise, the WCJ did not issue a reasoned decision. 

Specifically, Claimant contends that the WCJ failed to consider the fact that 

Employer had accepted Claimant’s work injury in the NCP and did not explain 

why Dr. Perry’s hearsay medical records were admitted into evidence over 

Claimant’s objection.5

We begin with a review of the applicable law. Section 406.1 of the 

Workers’ Compensation Act6(Act) requires an employer to either accept liability 

 

4

This Court’s review of an order of the Board determines whether the necessary findings of fact 

are supported by substantial evidence, whether Board procedures were violated, whether 

constitutional rights were violated or an error of law was committed. Cytemp Specialty Steel v.

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Crisman), 39 A.3d 1028, 1033 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

5

Employer argues that Claimant has waived the argument about Dr. Perry’s records because he 

did not raise that issue in his appeal to the Board. Claimant’s argument about Dr. Perry’s records 

is being raised in the context of his reasoned decision argument, and he did raise the issue of a 

reasoned decision before the Board. Therefore, we will address the argument about Dr. Perry’s 

records.

6 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §717.1. Section 406.1 was added by the 

Act of February 8, 1972, P.L. 25. It states, in relevant part, as follows:

(a) The employer and insurer shall promptly investigate each injury reported or 

known to the employer and shall proceed promptly to commence the payment of 

(Footnote continued on the next page . . .)
9

or issue a denial within 21 days of receiving notice of an injury. 77 P.S. §717.1. 

The employer has the option of issuing a medical only NCP, by which it 

acknowledges a work injury and agrees to pay for medical expenses but does not 

accept liability for or agree to pay any wage loss benefits for disability. Armstrong 

v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Haines & Kibblehouse, Inc.), 931 A.2d 

827, 831-32 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). A claimant who believes that the work injury is 

also causing a loss of earning power has the burden of filing a claim petition and 

proving his case. Orenich v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Geisinger 

Wyoming Valley Medical Center), 863 A.2d 165, 170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

In a claim petition, the claimant has the burden of proving all 

elements necessary to support an award of benefits. Inglis House v. Workmen’s 

Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592, 595 (Pa. 1993). The claimant 

must prove through unequivocal medical testimony that he sustained a work injury 

which resulted in disability, i.e., a loss of earning power. Fotta v. Workmen’s 

Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Steel/USX Corp. Maple Creek Mine), 626 A.2d 

1144, 1146 (Pa. 1993). A claimant who continues to perform his regular job after 

the injury and is later laid off for economic reasons is not entitled to disability 

 

(continued . . . )

compensation due either pursuant to an agreement ... or a notice of compensation 

payable ... or pursuant to a notice of temporary compensation payable....

***

(c) If the insurer controverts the right to compensation it shall promptly notify the 

employe or his dependent, on a form prescribed by the department, stating the 

grounds upon which the right to compensation is controverted and shall forthwith 

furnish a copy or copies to the department.

77 P.S. §717.1.
10

benefits. Klarich v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (RAC’s Association), 

819 A.2d 626, 628 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

Section 422(a) of the Act requires the WCJ to issue a reasoned 

decision “containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the 

evidence as a whole which clearly and concisely states and explains the rationale 

for the decisions so that all can determine why and how a particular result was 

reached.” 77 P.S. §834.7 The WCJ must give reasons for accepting or rejecting 

evidence. Id. The WCJ has a duty to “make crucial findings of fact on all essential 

issues necessary for review by the Board and this Court,” but is not required to 

address specifically each bit of evidence offered. Pistella v. Workmen’s 

Compensation Appeal Board (Samson Buick Body Shop), 633 A.2d 230, 234 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1993). A decision is reasoned for purposes of Section 422(a) if it allows 

for adequate appellate review. Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board 

(Tristate Transport), 828 A.2d 1043, 1052 (Pa. 2003).

Here, Employer issued a medical only NCP acknowledging that 

Claimant had sustained a work injury on February 25, 2011. The centerpiece to

 

7

Section 422(a) states in relevant part:

All parties to an adjudicatory proceeding are entitled to a reasoned decision 

containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a 

whole which clearly and concisely states and explains the rationale for the 

decisions so that all can determine why and how a particular result was reached. 

The [WCJ] shall specify the evidence upon which the [WCJ] relies and state the 

reasons for accepting it in conformity with this section. When faced with 

conflicting evidence, the [WCJ] must adequately explain the reasons for rejecting 

or discrediting competent evidence. Uncontroverted evidence may not be rejected 

for no reason or for an irrational reason; the [WCJ] must identify that evidence 

and explain adequately the reasons for its rejection. The adjudication shall 

provide the basis for meaningful appellate review.

77 P.S. §834.
11

Claimant’s appeal is that this NCP entitled him to disability benefits after

Employer laid him off.

Claimant cites several shortcomings in the WCJ’s decision. First, the 

WCJ failed to acknowledge the acceptance of the work injury in the NCP. Second, 

the WCJ did not explain why he credited the testimony of McDade, who admitted 

that she received Claimant’s February 26, 2011, e-mail that reported a back injury 

but then denied knowing Claimant had a work injury until August 2012. Third, the 

WCJ’s acceptance of Hinkel’s testimony is inexplicable because she acknowledged 

knowing that Claimant had sustained a work injury before his layoff. Fourth, the 

WCJ failed to explain why, despite its issuance of a medical only NCP, Employer 

was allowed to issue an NCD denying that a work injury occurred on February 25, 

2011, and stating that the alleged disability was first reported on September 6, 

2012. Fifth, the WCJ did not explain why he credited the testimony of McDade 

and Hinkel when the documents Employer filed with the Bureau contradict their 

testimony. Claimant posits that if the WCJ had not “ignored this most important 

evidence without explanation,” the WCJ would have found that Claimant is 

entitled to wage loss benefits. Claimant’s Brief at 23. Finally, Claimant argues 

that the WCJ failed to explain why he admitted Dr. Perry’s records into evidence 

over Claimant’s objection.

We conclude that the WCJ issued a reasoned opinion. Contrary to 

Claimant’s assertion, the WCJ did acknowledge that Employer issued an NCP as a 

result of the February 25, 2011, work injury, for a “back strain/sprain.” WCJ 

Decision, October 30, 2013, at 1; Finding of Fact No. 2. The WCJ also found that 

Claimant “never had any disability attaching to him due to the same.” Id. at 10; 

Finding of Fact No. 27. These findings are supported by the evidence showing that 
12

Claimant had no medical restrictions, did not request them of Employer and was 

able to perform his pre-injury job without a wage loss up until being laid off.

Claimant overstates the significance of the medical only NCP. It 

simply acknowledged a non-disabling strain/sprain. After he was laid off, 

Claimant alleged additional disabling work injuries arising from the February 25, 

2011, incident. The NCD stated that Employer denied that Claimant’s alleged

disabling head and back injuries resulted from a work injury. The WCJ was not 

required to discuss further the NCD because it did not conflict with the NCP.8 

Claimant had the burden of proving a disabling work injury through competent 

medical evidence, on which the WCJ focused.

The WCJ’s treatment of the testimony of McDade and Hinkel is 

likewise reasoned. The WCJ summarized both Hinkel’s and McDade’s testimony. 

Both knew of the February 26, 2011, back injury. It was unnecessary for the WCJ 

to discuss their testimony in relation to the contents of the NCD because the NCD 

concerned other alleged injuries. Their testimony did not conflict with the NCD or

the NCP. Their testimony addressed whether Claimant had work restrictions and 

why he was laid off. The WCJ thoroughly discussed and considered their 

testimony on these issues.

Finally, the WCJ’s decision is reasoned with respect to Dr. Perry’s 

records.9 Dr. Perry’s medical records, which were attached to the deposition of Dr. 

 

8

For the sake of complete accuracy, Employer should have stated that a back sprain/strain had 

occurred on February 25, 2011, rather than stating that no injury occurred. However, it is of no 

moment because the sprain/strain was not at issue in the claim petition.

9 Although the rules of evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings, hearsay evidence, 

when properly objected to, cannot support a finding and will be excluded from the record. 

Steinhouse v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (A.P. Green Services), 783 A.2d 352, 357 

n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Dr. Perry’s medical 

(Footnote continued on the next page . . .)
13

Mauthe, were admitted. Claimant was questioned about the contents of Dr. Perry’s 

medical records and did not object to these questions. Dr. Chun and Dr. Mauthe 

also testified about Dr. Perry’s records. Employer used Dr. Perry’s records to 

impeach Dr. Chun, whose opinion admittedly depended on the accuracy of the 

history Claimant gave him. Huff v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board 

(Ingalls Steel of Pennsylvania), 453 A.2d 753, 755 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982). Dr. 

Mauthe relied upon Dr. Perry’s medical records in formulating his own medical 

opinion that the only injury Claimant sustained on February 25, 2011, was a nondisabling back strain/sprain. A medical expert is permitted to base his opinion on 

the contents of medical reports of other doctors, which the expert customarily 

relies upon in the practice of his profession. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 282 A.2d 

693, 698-99 (Pa. 1971). 

In short, the WCJ’s decision was reasoned. The WCJ made findings 

of fact and conclusions of law necessary to address the issues presented by 

Claimant’s petition. Notwithstanding the medical only NCP, Claimant had the 

burden of proving that he sustained a disabling work injury on February 25, 2011. 

It is undisputed that Claimant continued working without medical restrictions or a 

wage loss until he was laid off on August 23, 2012. The WCJ accepted the 

testimony of Dr. Mauthe that Claimant’s work injury was a strain that had 

resolved. The WCJ accepted the testimony of Employer’s fact witnesses that 

 

(continued . . . )

records were not admitted for the truth of their diagnoses. Rather, they were considered as 

evidence relevant to what Claimant reported to Dr. Perry. Mithani v. Workers’ Compensation 

Appeal Board (Mt. Airy Lodge), 730 A.2d 566, 568-69 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Further, under the 

Act, Dr. Mauthe is expressly authorized to review Claimant’s medical records as part of his IME. 

Id. at 569. 
14

Claimant did his regular job until he was laid off because of a decline in 

Employer’s business.10 Given these findings of fact, the WCJ properly denied the 

claim petition.

Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.

______________________________

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge

 

10 This Court may not disturb those determinations because the WCJ is the ultimate fact finder 

and has complete authority over questions of credibility. Davis v. Workers’ Compensation 

Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 753 A.2d 905, 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Charles Mecca, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: No. 132 C.D. 2015

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Procura Management, Inc. :

and Zenith Insurance), :

Respondents :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2015, the order of the 

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board dated January 6, 2015, in the abovecaptioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.

 ______________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge