IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Brian Vazquez, : 

 : 

 Petitioner : 

 : 

 v. : No. 536 C.D. 2022 

 : Submitted: December 30, 2022 

Arthur Jackson Company : 

(Workers’ Compensation Appeal : 

Board), : 

 : 

 Respondent : 

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge 

 HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge 

 HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge 

OPINION NOT REPORTED 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: August 4, 2023 

 Brian Vazquez (Claimant) petitions for review of the order of the 

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the decision of a 

workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) denying his Claim Petition for benefits under 

the Workers’ Compensation Act (WC and Act, respectively).1 We affirm. 

 On June 15, 2020, Claimant filed a Claim Petition in which he alleged, 

inter alia, that he suffered a work-related injury in the nature of “injury to lower 

back with left lower extremity radiculopathy” while in the course of his employment 

as a project manager for the Arthur Jackson Company (Employer). Certified Record 

1

 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§1-1041.4, 2501-2710. 
2 

Docket (CR Dkt.) Entry 2 at 1. Claimant also alleged that he suffered the injury 

while he “was moving furniture and felt a sharp pain in [his] lower back,” and that 

he notified his supervisor of the work-related injury on March 10, 2020. Id. On 

June 23, 2020, Employer filed a timely Answer to the Claim Petition in which it 

denied all of the material allegations raised in the Claim Petition, specifically 

denying the date, location, and occurrence of the alleged work-related injury, and 

demanding strict proof thereof. See CR Dkt. Entry 4 at 1. On June 30, 2020, 

Employer issued a Notice of Compensation Denial, asserting that Claimant did not 

suffer a work-related injury. See CR Dkt. Entry 20 at 2. Hearings before a WCJ on 

the Claim Petition ensued. 

 In relevant part, Claimant testified that he started working with 

Employer as a project manager in July 2019, and his job duties included building 

maintenance, payroll, hands-on training, inspections, and completing work orders. 

He stated that on February 27, 2020, he was moving furniture with Ricardo Lively, 

an employee in the building, and felt a sharp pain in his back. He remained at the 

site for the rest of the day, but did no physical work and took an Aleve when he got 

home. He worked the following day, but did no physical work, and was then out of 

work for a week due to his injury. On March 2nd or 3rd, he e-mailed Employer that 

he would be out of work that week due to his back, but he did not tell Employer how 

he injured his back. On March 4th, he saw his primary care physician, who gave 

him medication, but he did not recall whether he told that doctor how he injured his 

back. He agreed that none of the doctors’ notes that he submitted to Employer 

contained anything about a work-related injury. 

 On March 10, 2020, Claimant then returned to work at a light-duty job 

and told his director, Charles Biney (Biney), that he injured his back. He had a 
3 

number of conversations with Biney about the work-related injury; however, he did 

not fill out an incident report because he was too busy at work. From April 6, 2020, 

to April 20, 2020, Claimant worked from home due to Employer’s COVID-19 

policy. That same week, Employer asked him to return to work, but he did not do 

so because he did not want to be exposed to COVID-19 and because of his back 

pain. Claimant has never returned to his pre-injury job and stopped working on April 

20, 2020. 

 Ultimately, Claimant’s family doctor referred him to a pain 

management doctor, Dr. Ng, who performed an injection to his back. His attorney 

then referred him to Stephen Ficchi, D.O. (Dr. Ficchi), who prescribed medication 

and physical therapy. Claimant testified that he has excruciating low back pain down 

his left leg to his foot, his foot is numb, and the pain radiates into his buttocks. He 

cannot straighten his back for most of the day, and he can only walk or sit for about 

30 minutes. He does not feel capable of performing his pre-injury job due to severe 

pain and drowsiness caused by his medications. 

 In support of his Claim Petition, Claimant also submitted the deposition 

testimony of Dr. Ficchi. Dr. Ficchi is board certified in general family medicine. 

He first saw Claimant on June 18, 2020, who complained of low back pain with 

numbness and tingling down the left leg, and presented a history of the work injury 

and medical treatment. Physical examination showed spasm and significant range 

of motion deficits. He reviewed a May 11, 2020 lumbar magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) study, which showed a disc bulge with an annular fissure and a central disc 

extrusion at the L4-5 level. He then ordered a July 15, 2020 electromyography 

(EMG), which showed a left L-5 radiculopathy. Dr. Ficchi’s diagnoses include 

lumbar strain and sprain, myofascial pain syndrome, extruded/protruded disc at the 
4 

L4-5 level, and active L5 radiculopathy on the left side. He opined that these 

diagnoses are a direct result of Claimant’s work injury and that Claimant cannot 

return to work at his pre-injury job. He stated that Claimant can do sedentary work 

three to four hours per day, three days a week, to start. 

 Employer presented the deposition testimony of Biney, who stated that 

he is one of Employer’s two operations managers and he was Claimant’s direct 

supervisor. During his work orientation with Melissa Usher (Usher), Employer’s 

human resources director, Claimant was trained on the need to be aware of work 

injuries, to fill out incident reports, and to immediately submit them to the claims 

department. In fact, Claimant has submitted incident reports for other employees. 

 Employer also has a work order system under which he assigns work 

orders to the staff, the staff all signs the work order when the task is completed, and 

the signed work order is returned to the administrator. Claimant did not sign a work 

order for moving furniture on February 27, 2020, or any other day, and Claimant did 

not tell him that he was moving furniture that day. Claimant is not permitted to do 

physical work because the union does not allow managers to do cleaners’ work. 

Rather, the managers under Claimant inspect jobs and manage workers. There was 

a February 27, 2020 work order to move furniture, but he did not know who 

completed it because it was not signed. 

 Biney testified that Claimant never reported a work injury to him and 

he first learned of the purported injury when Claimant e-mailed Usher in June 2020.2 

2

 Employer also submitted a June 7, 2020 e-mail from Claimant to Usher that he could not 

report to work the next day because he had had excruciating pain since the beginning of March 

after he completed a furniture move at the work site. He stated that he was unsure as to when he 

could return to work, and requested that she send him paperwork for a leave under the federal 

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§2601, 2611-2620, 2631-2636, 2651-2656. 

See CR Dkt. Entry 25. 

(Footnote continued on next page...) 
5 

Claimant e-mailed him on March 3rd, simply stating that he would not be in because 

he was not feeling well. Later that day, Claimant told Biney over the telephone that 

he had a serious spinal condition, but he never indicated that the condition was work 

related. 

 Biney stated that this was when the COVID-19 pandemic began, and 

Claimant indicated that he did not want to be part of Employer’s team that stays to 

service buildings because he had underlying conditions. When Claimant said that 

he could work from home, Biney rejected the offer. Claimant was then given time 

off when he said that he had to take care of his father. Claimant was terminated on 

June 16, 2020, after he stopped reporting for work. 

 Employer also presented the records from Jefferson Family Medicine 

(Jefferson), the practice of Claimant’s primary care physician. See CR Dkt. Entry 

24. In relevant part, the records indicate: (1) Claimant was seen on March 4, 2020, 

complaining of acute bilateral back pain with left-side sciatica, noting that he had 

chronic intermittent back pain for 15 years, which worsened two days earlier with 

“no triggers”; (2) Claimant was seen on April 7, 2020, for viral exposure with no 

mention of back pain; (3) Claimant was seen on April 20, 2020, and the diagnoses 

were acute and chronic bilateral back pain with left-sided sciatica noting that the low 

back pain was a “chronic issue”; (4) Claimant was seen on May 21, 2020, when he 

complained of back pain and left leg swelling, and was concerned about deep vein 

thrombosis, and the diagnoses were tightness of leg fascia and acute bilateral low 

back pain with left-sided sciatica; (5) Claimant was seen on June 9, 2020, when the 

 Employer also submitted a June 8, 2020 e-mail exchange in which Usher indicated that 

Claimant did not qualify for FMLA leave. Claimant responded asking if he would be eligible for 

WC benefits if his back did not improve since he moved furniture at the end of February. Usher 

then responded that Employer was not aware of him moving furniture. See id. 
6 

diagnoses were generalized anxiety disorder and lumbar pain with radiculopathy, 

and Claimant complained of very severe low back pain and wanted it noted that 

“This Occurred at Work in February. Was Moving Furniture at Work.”; and (6) 

Claimant was seen on June 11, 2020, when the diagnoses were the same. See id. at 

4, 21-22, 31-32, 39-40, 49-50, 57. The records from that appointment also state, in 

relevant part: 

Patient [s]tates he reported accident at work moving tables 

to supervisor who said to make an incident report, but 

never did. Patient is wishing to confirm that the accident 

happened at work and confirm it is in the medical recor[d]. 

I explained that I did not see him for this problem 

originally. I said it is a possibility the lifting at work 

caused it, but I cannot say for certain. 

Id. at 58. 

 Employer also submitted the deposition testimony of Armando 

Mendez, M.D. (Dr. Mendez), a physician board certified in orthopedic surgery. Dr. 

Mendez stated that he performed an independent medical evaluation (IME) on 

October 28, 2020, at which Claimant complained of pain in his back and down his 

left leg and provided a history of his alleged work injury and his treatment. 

 The WCJ summarized Dr. Mendez’s relevant testimony as follows: 

 c. On physical examination, Claimant walked with 

a normal gait. There was discomfort with palpation of the 

lower left lumbar musculature, but no spasms. Claimant 

exhibited a very limited range of motion. Claimant 

complained of lower back pain with simultaneous spine 

and pelvis rotation, which is not an anatomically 

explainable complaint because the rotation occurs through 

the hip joint and not in the lower back. Dr. Mendez could 

not examine him in the prone position because Claimant 

said that caused him too much pain. With straight leg 

raising testing, Claimant complained of low back pain, but 

no radicular pain. 
7 

 In the supine position, when the doctor tried to bend 

his knees and hips, Claimant complained of severe pain on 

the left side, which was inconsistent with the fact that he 

sat in that position, with his hip at 90 degrees, for about 20 

minutes while the doctor questioned him. There was 

normal sensation, strength[,] and reflexes in both lower 

extremities with no atrophy or asymmetry. Claimant had 

full range of motion of the hips, knees[,] and ankles. 

Examination of the knees and ankles was normal with no 

effusion, instability, or meniscal pathology. Objectively, 

it was a normal physical examination. 

CR Dkt. Entry 6 at 9. 

 Dr. Mendez reviewed the EMG study, which suggested a left L-5 

radiculopathy, but noted that there was not much in the accompanying examination 

to support that diagnosis. He also reviewed the report of the MRI study, which 

showed an L4-5 disc bulge and extrusion, loss of disc height and signal, and disc 

desiccation consistent with a chronic degenerative process, with no impingement, 

compression or displacement of the left L-5 nerve root; however, it does not support 

the EMG finding or Claimant’s subjective complaints, and does not indicate an acute 

injury. He also reviewed the May 29, 2020 letter from Dr. Ng. releasing Claimant 

to return to full-duty work on June 8, 2020. 

 Based on the initial records available for review at the time of the IME, 

and Claimant’s history regarding his job duties and the occurrence of the alleged 

injury, Dr. Mendez opined that Claimant had sustained a strain and sprain from 

which he was fully recovered. He subsequently reviewed additional records and Dr. 

Ficchi’s deposition testimony, noting that the records from Claimant’s primary care 

physician contain no entry about a work-related injury and suggested that Claimant 

had a chronic back issue. The first mention of a work-related injury by Claimant 

was on June 9, 2020. 
8 

 Ultimately, the WCJ made the following relevant credibility 

determinations: 

 9. I have carefully reviewed Claimant’s testimony 

in conjunction with the other evidence, and do not find it 

credible. Claimant did not seek medical treatment on the 

day of his alleged injury, February 27, 2020; he finished 

that day and thinks he also worked the next day. He then 

e-mailed Employer on March 2 or 3 that he would be out 

of work due to his back, but did not tell Employer he had 

suffered a work-related injury. He asked Employer about 

short[-]term disability. The records from his primary care 

practice, [Jefferson], contain no mention of any work 

injury for visits in March, April[,] and May 2020; in fact, 

the March 4, 2020 note indicates that Claimant had 

chronic intermittent back pain for 15 years, which 

worsened two days before [] [this would have been March 

2] with “no triggers.” It was not until June 9 that the 

Jefferson physician wrote, “Patient wants it Noted that 

This Occurred at Work in February. Was Moving 

Furniture at Work.” The first indication that he told 

Employer about an alleged work injury was June 7; 

although Claimant testified that he told [Biney] on March 

11 about the incident moving furniture, Claimant never 

completed an incident report, even though he was familiar 

with this process because he was a supervisor and because 

he had a previous [WC] claim himself. Although 

Claimant said he signed a work order after moving 

furniture on February 27, 2020, [Biney] said there was a 

work order[,] but it was not signed by anyone. [Biney] 

said Claimant told him he had a serious spinal condition[,] 

but did not say it was due to a work injury, and never gave 

him a doctor’s note. Although Claimant said in a June 8 

e-mail to [Usher] that he had “e[-]mailed the site and 

copied [Biney] on it,” Claimant did not produce any such 

e[-]mail; the only e[-]mail to the site was the April 6 e[-

]mail to [another employee] about potential COVID[-19] 

exposure. The e[-]mails and medical records, in 

conjunction with [Biney’s] testimony, indicate that 

Claimant was anxious about COVID[-19] exposure and 

wanted to work at home, which [Biney] would not allow, 
9 

and that in fact, Claimant never returned to work after his 

early April COVID[-19] concerns. 

 10. I have carefully considered the testimony of 

[Biney], in conjunction with the other evidence, and find 

it credible. [Biney’s] testimony is supported by the e[-

]mails between Claimant and [Usher], and it was only after 

the pandemic began and Claimant was not permitted to 

work at home that he asked the Jefferson physicians to 

document in his record that he alleged a work injury and 

began to inquire about [WC]. As noted above, Claimant 

produced nothing to support his testimony – which I do 

not find credible – that he verbally told [Biney] after being 

out a week that he had a work injury; he did not produce 

the e[-]mail about the work injury he said he sent the site 

and copied [Biney] on, and he admitted he did not 

complete an incident report. 

 11. I have carefully reviewed the testimony of Dr. 

Ficchi and Dr. Mendez in conjunction with the other 

evidence, and find the testimony of Dr. Mendez more 

credible. Dr. Mendez is board[]certified in orthopedic 

surgery. Dr. Mendez’s opinions are supported by the fact 

that Claimant did not initially report a work injury to his 

employer or his treating doctors at [Jefferson], and by the 

fact that the MRI documents degenerative changes 

consistent with Claimant’s previous back injury and the 

Jefferson notes that indicated Claimant had a “chronic” 

low back condition. Dr. Ficchi is board[]certified only in 

family practice. He was not Claimant’s initial treating 

physician and did not see Claimant until four months after 

the alleged work injury when Claimant was referred by 

counsel. 

CR Dkt. Entry 6 at 10-11. 

 Based on the foregoing, the WCJ found “that Claimant did not sustain 

a work injury on February 27, 2020 or any other date,” and concluded that he failed 

to sustain his burden of proving such to support the award of WC benefits. CR Dkt. 

Entry 6 at 11. Accordingly, the WCJ issued an order denying Claimant’s Claim 
10 

Petition, and the Board affirmed the WCJ’s order on appeal. Claimant then filed the 

instant petition for review of the Board’s order. 

 Claimant’s sole claim on appeal3 is that the Board erred in affirming the 

WCJ’s decision because it is not a “reasoned decision” as required by Section 422(a) 

of the Act.4 Specifically, Claimant asserts that the WCJ’s finding that he did not 

sustain a work-related injury constitutes an arbitrary and capricious disregard of Dr. 

Mendez’s testimony that Claimant had sustained a low back strain and sprain that 

had resolved at the time of his October 28, 2020 IME. As a result, Claimant 

contends, the WCJ should have at least granted the Claim Petition from the date of 

injury, February 27, 2020, to the date of the IME. We do not agree. 

 As this Court has previously explained: 

3

 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, 

whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law, and whether the necessary findings of fact 

are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. 

§704. 

4

 77 P.S. §834. Section 422(a) states, in pertinent 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. 

As exhaustively recounted above, the WCJ clearly complied with the foregoing requirements by 

extensively outlining the bases for her comprehensive credibility determinations. 
11 

 In a claim petition, the claimant bears the burden of 

proving all of the elements necessary to establish 

entitlement to benefits under the Act. Inglis House v. 

Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), [634 

A.2d 592, 595 (Pa. 1993)]. [The c]laimant must prove that 

his injury arose in the course of employment and was 

related thereto. Krawchuk v. Philadelphia Electric 

Company, [439 A.2d 627, 630 (Pa. 1981)]. 

 Here, [the c]laimant testified that he sustained 

injuries following a slip and fall . . . in the course and 

scope of his employment. The WCJ did not believe [the 

c]laimant. No other witnesses corroborated the slip and 

fall. . . . [The c]laimant asserts that [the e]mployer’s 

medical witness [(doctor)] corroborates [his] testimony. 

[The d]octor took a history from [the c]laimant regarding 

the alleged work incident and based his medical diagnosis 

on the assumption that [the c]laimant had fallen. [The 

doctor] based his opinion on causation entirely upon the 

history provided to him by [the c]laimant, which the WCJ 

rejected. If the WCJ rejects the relied-upon information, 

then expert medical testimony premised upon the expert’s 

assumption of the truthfulness of the information provided 

is not competent. See Sewell v. Workers’ Compensation 

Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 772 A.2d 93, 98 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2001). Moreover, acceptance of a history of an 

injury by an employer’s medical expert for purposes of 

rendering a medical diagnosis does not constitute an 

admission or concession by the employer that the injury 

was work[]related. Ultimately, [the c]laimant, not [the 

e]mployer, had the burden to prove that [he] sustained a 

work-related injury. The record lacks competent evidence 

supporting [the c]laimant’s claim petition because the 

WCJ discredited [the c]laimant’s testimony and rejected 

the existence of any work-related injury. 

Wrecsics v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (National Carriers, Inc.) (Pa. 

Cmwlth., No. 754 C.D. 2012, filed October 26, 2012), slip op. at 6-7.5

5 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (“As used in this rule, ‘non-precedential decision’ refers to . . . an 

unreported memorandum opinion of the Commonwealth Court filed after January 15, 2008. Nonprecedential decisions . . . may be cited for their persuasive value.”). 
12 

 Likewise, in the instant case, there is simply no evidence supporting 

Claimant’s Claim Petition because the WCJ discredited Claimant’s testimony and 

rejected the existence of any work-related injury. The fact that Dr. Mendez rendered 

an opinion based on the false history that Claimant provided is of no moment, and 

does not constitute an admission, concession, or competent evidence that a workrelated injury occurred in the first instance. As a result, the Board did not err in 

affirming the WCJ’s order denying Claimant’s Claim Petition. 

 Accordingly, the Board’s order is affirmed. 

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Brian Vazquez, : 

 : 

 Petitioner : 

 : 

 v. : No. 536 C.D. 2022 

 : 

Arthur Jackson Company : 

(Workers’ Compensation Appeal : 

Board), : 

 : 

 Respondent : 

O R D E R 

 AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2023, the order of the Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board dated May 16, 2022, is AFFIRMED. 

 

__________________________________ 

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge