IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

City of Allentown, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 593 C.D. 2020

: Submitted: October 23, 2020

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board :

(Bryant, Jr.), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge1

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: March 11, 2021

The City of Allentown (Employer) petitions for review of an 

adjudication of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that denied its 

termination petition. In doing so, the Board affirmed the decision of the Workers’ 

Compensation Judge (WCJ) that Jack Bryant, Jr.’s (Claimant) work-related injuries 

exceeded what had been listed on the Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) and 

that Employer failed to prove that Claimant was fully recovered from the injuries on 

the corrected NCP. Upon review, we affirm.

Background

Claimant was employed as a firefighter, and his duties included 

assisting paramedics on ambulance calls. On December 9, 2013, while lifting a 

patient, Claimant felt sudden pain in the area of his right scapula. Employer issued 

1 This case was assigned to the opinion writer before January 4, 2021, when Judge Leavitt 

completed her term as President Judge. 
2

a medical-only NCP on March 25, 2014, describing the work injury as “[u]pper back 

[s]train.” Certified Record (C.R.), Item 18, at 1. On April 23, 2014, Employer issued 

an NCP describing the work injury as an “[a]cute strain” to the thoracic spine and 

paid disability benefits. C.R., Item 16, at 1. When Claimant returned to work on 

July 3, 2014, his disability benefits were suspended. 

On August 22, 2018, Employer filed a termination petition alleging that 

Claimant had fully recovered as of January 8, 2018. At the first hearing before the 

WCJ, the following exchange took place:

[WCJ]: ... I’ve uploaded the [medical-only NCP], which I believe 

was the first [NCP] that was filed. It was a medical-only at that 

point, identifying an upper-back injury. The reason I’ve 

uploaded that was, in our discussions, I was advised that the – on 

an area of the body we’re talking about is cervical with possible 

symptomology going into the thoracic region. So, the upper back 

seems to be a fairly good way to describe it. However, 

everyone’s in agreement that we’re also talking the neck. So, 

we’re not being that specific about thoracic levels or cervical 

levels. We’re talking about neck and upper-back area.... [D]oes

that fairly accurately summarize the discussions we had off the 

record regarding the body part and the injury we’re talking 

about?

[Employer’s Counsel]: Yes, Judge, it does.

[Claimant’s Counsel]: It does.

Hearing Transcript, 10/24/2018, at 6-7; C.R., Item 9, at 6-7 (emphasis added).

In support of its termination petition, Employer presented the 

deposition testimony of Don Ko, M.D., who is board certified in physical medicine 

and rehabilitation. On December 28, 2017, Dr. Ko conducted an independent 

medical examination (IME) of Claimant, obtained a history of the work injury, and 

reviewed Claimant’s medical records. Dr. Ko noted that a magnetic resonance 
3

imaging (MRI) of Claimant’s cervical spine dated January 11, 2016, showed a disc 

protrusion at the C6-7 level, which caused “some narrowing and impingement on 

the right side.” Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 2/28/2019, at 10; Reproduced Record at 

64a (R.R. __).

At the time of Dr. Ko’s evaluation, Claimant was working full time. He 

continued to complain of pain in his right shoulder, for which he received cervical 

epidural steroid injections from Dr. Robert Wertz with good results. Claimant was 

no longer on pain medications. 

Dr. Ko testified that Claimant’s physical examination was 

unremarkable except for “trigger point tenderness” in Claimant’s right paraspinal 

cervical muscles and the right upper trapezius muscle, which Dr. Ko attributed to a 

“sprain/strain type of injury.” Id. at 16, 18; R.R. 70a, 72a. Dr. Ko opined that 

Claimant suffered from neck pain attributable to the cervical strain; right shoulder 

pain due to thoracic strain; and right cervical disc displacement at the C6-7 level. 

The neck pain and right shoulder pain were work-related but, nevertheless, “had 

resolved,” because a soft tissue injury would not last beyond six months. Id. at 20; 

R.R. 74a. The cervical disc displacement was not work-related. Further, Dr. Ko did 

not attribute Claimant’s right shoulder pain to the right cervical disc displacement 

because a disc herniation at the C6-7 level would cause radiating pain in the arm and 

hand, not in his shoulder. Id. at 21; R.R. 75a. 

On cross-examination, Dr. Ko agreed that the January 11, 2016, MRI 

and an earlier MRI of December 4, 2015, both showed a right side disc protrusion at 

the C5-6 level. Dr. Ko acknowledged that Claimant’s medical record did not reveal 

any preexisting condition relating to Claimant’s cervical area or any trauma other 

than the December 9, 2013, work incident. Dr. Ko testified that he did not know the 
4

cause of the trigger point tenderness he observed during his physical examination.2 

N.T., 2/28/2019, at 29-30; R.R. 83a-84a.

In opposition to the termination petition, Claimant testified in person 

before the WCJ on April 3, 2019. Since his work injury on December 9, 2013, 

Claimant had undergone medical treatment and pain management. Dr. Robert 

Mauthe performed an IME on Claimant in October 2015, and referred him to a spine 

surgeon. The surgeon did not recommend surgery and in 2016 referred Claimant to 

2 Specifically, Dr. Ko testified:

[Counsel:] [I]n December of 2017[,] you’re making a positive finding of trigger 

point tenderness at the right paraspinal cervical muscle and trigger points at the 

right scapular region; correct?

[Dr. Ko:] Correct.

[Counsel:] And as I understand your direct testimony, [Claimant] in your opinion 

only had from the work injury a shoulder strain and a neck strain; correct?

[Dr. Ko:] Correct.

[Counsel:] All right. And you’ve also testified that those kind of work injuries 

usually recover at the most ... in six months; is that fair?

[Dr. Ko:] That’s fair.

[Counsel:] All right. And obviously more than six months passed from the date of 

the injury to the date of your exam; correct?

[Dr. Ko:] Correct.

[Counsel:] All right. So why is he still having those trigger point tenderness if 

they’re attributable to a strain or a sprain?

[Dr. Ko:] Well, just because he has those tenderness does not mean that it was from 

[] the work injury.

[Counsel:] What does it mean? It’s from the cervical displacement, isn’t it?

[Dr. Ko:] I do not believe so.

[Counsel:] Well, what do you attribute it to then? If he’s fully recovered from the 

strain and sprain and it’s not attributable to the disc displacement, what do you 

attribute it to?

* * *

[Dr. Ko:] I mean, the physical exam finding is what it is. I mean, if you’re asking 

me where is it from, I mean, I have no idea.

N.T., 2/28/2019, at 29-30; R.R. 83a-84a.
5

Dr. Wertz, with whom he continues to treat. Claimant testified that he continues to 

experience pain mainly in the right scapula area, which at times radiates into his 

neck. The periodic injections he received from Dr. Wertz would help “for a while,” 

i.e., usually “three or four months,” depending on the pain levels. N.T., 4/3/2019, at 

23; R.R. at 46a. Claimant also takes over-the-counter medicine for pain relief. 

Claimant testified that his pain complaints have been about the same since the work 

injury, which is the only trauma to which he could attribute the pain. Claimant 

denied having any treatment for his cervical spine prior to the work incident. 

Claimant also presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Wertz, who is 

board certified in anesthesiology with a subspecialty in pain management. Dr. Wertz 

testified that he has treated Claimant since February 2016, at which time he obtained 

a history of the work incident. Claimant complained of pain at the base of the right 

side of the neck and inside the right shoulder blade, which has persisted since the 

work injury without abating. The January 11, 2016, MRI revealed two small lower 

cervical disc herniations at C5-6 and C6-7. Dr. Wertz believed the herniations 

caused Claimant’s pain and treated them with cervical epidural injections. The

injections relieved the pain for two or three months, “sometimes[] a little bit longer.” 

N.T., 3/26/2019, at 12; R.R. 112a. Dr. Wertz opined that Claimant is not a candidate 

for surgery because he does not have radicular symptoms into his arm. Claimant’s 

future course of treatment would continue to be palliative. 

Dr. Wertz testified that Claimant’s cervical MRI of September 25, 

2018, showed persisting herniations at C5-6 and C6-7. Dr. Wertz diagnosed 

Claimant as having chronically herniated discs in his lower cervical spine which 

cause axial pain. Claimant’s complaints matched the result of the MRIs and have 

been consistent throughout the course of treatment. Id. at 18; R.R. 118a. Dr. Wertz 
6

opined that the disc herniations were caused by Claimant’s work injury, from which 

Claimant has not fully recovered. 

Employer objected to Dr. Wertz’s testimony to the extent he attributed 

Claimant’s right shoulder pain to the cervical disc herniations, which were not 

accepted in the NCP. Employer asserted that Claimant was barred by the three-year 

statute of limitations in Section 413 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act)3from 

amending the description of injury to include the cervical disc herniations.

WCJ’s and the Board’s Decisions

The WCJ denied Employer’s termination petition. In so doing, the

WCJ credited Claimant’s testimony that he continues to experience pain in his neck 

and scapular area, which are relieved by the cervical epidural injections. The WCJ 

credited Dr. Wertz’s testimony over Dr. Ko’s, noting that Dr. Wertz has treated 

Claimant for years, whereas Dr. Ko saw Claimant on one occasion. In accordance 

with Dr. Wertz’s testimony, the WCJ found that Claimant’s cervical disc herniations 

were work-related. The WCJ rejected the conflicting testimony of Dr. Ko that the 

trigger point tenderness revealed in his physical examination of Claimant was

unrelated either to the cervical and thoracic strain or to the cervical disc herniations. 

As such, the WCJ found the description of the work injury in the NCP 

to be “materially incorrect” and amended it to include “annular tears/disc herniations 

at C5-6 and C6-7,” from which Claimant has not fully recovered. WCJ Decision at 

11, Conclusions of Law No. 3; C.R., Item 4, at 11. The WCJ opined that the 

amendment more accurately described the “upper back strain” that Employer 

accepted in its medical-only NCP. WCJ Decision at 10; C.R., Item 4, at 10. The 

WCJ rejected Employer’s statute of limitations argument, holding that Section 413 

3 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§771-772.
7

of the Act authorizes the amendment of an incorrect NCP at any time. Accordingly, 

the WCJ overruled Employer’s objection to Dr. Wertz’s testimony that Claimant’s 

cervical disc herniations were work-related.

Employer appealed, and the Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision. The 

Board held that the WCJ did not violate Section 413 or Employer’s due process 

rights by amending the NCP. Employer had notice that the injury description was 

an issue because the parties discussed the nature of the work injury at the first hearing 

before the WCJ, where they agreed that the work injury involved Claimant’s neck. 

Further, the expert testimony of Dr. Ko and Dr. Wertz centered on Claimant’s 

cervical condition. The Board held that the WCJ acted within his discretion in 

crediting Dr. Wertz’s testimony to find that Claimant has not fully recovered from 

the work-related cervical disc herniations. Employer then petitioned for this Court’s 

review.

Appeal

On appeal,4 Employer presents three issues for our consideration, which 

we combine into two for clarity. First, Employer argues that the WCJ’s expansion 

of the work injury description to include the cervical disc herniations violated 

Employer’s due process rights and the three-year statute of limitations in Section 

413 of the Act. Likewise, the WCJ erred in overruling Employer’s objection to using 

Dr. Wertz’s testimony as the basis for revising the accepted work injuries in the 

NCP. Second, Employer argues that the WCJ and the Board erred in denying 

Employer’s termination petition because Employer proved that Claimant fully 

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 whether 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). 
8

recovered from the accepted injury of acute strain of the upper back and thoracic 

spine. In any event, Dr. Wertz’s testimony about Claimant’s herniated cervical discs 

was equivocal. Stated otherwise, the WCJ’s finding that Claimant has not fully 

recovered from the December 9, 2013, work injury was not supported by substantial 

evidence. 

I. Amendment to NCP

Employer first argues that the WCJ erred in amending the NCP to 

include the disc herniations at C5-6 and C6-7. Although a WCJ can expand the work 

injury in the absence of a review petition, it was inappropriate to do so here because 

Employer did not have notice that the injury description was at issue in the 

proceeding. Employer Brief at 15 (citing Cinram Manufacturing, Inc. v. Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board (Hill), 975 A.2d 577, 582 (Pa. 2009)). Employer 

asserts that the first time “there was any mention of the compensable injury being 

other than that set forth in the two [NCPs] was at the deposition of Claimant’s 

medical witness, [Dr. Wertz].” Employer Brief at 16. 

Employer asserts, in the alternative, that the expansion of the 

compensable injury by the WCJ is time-barred by the statute of limitations in Section 

413 of the Act, which provides that a claimant who returns to work for more than 

three years and has received no payments of compensation is barred from seeking 

review of the NCP for mistake. Claimant returned to work on July 3, 2014, and had 

worked over three years when Employer filed the instant termination petition. As 

such, Employer asserts, Claimant could no longer seek a change to the NCP that 

limited Claimant’s work injury to an upper back/thoracic spine strain, and the WCJ

thus erred in overruling Employer’s objection to Dr. Wertz’s testimony.
9

Claimant counters that the cervical disc herniations do not constitute a 

“separate injury” but are “another diagnosis of the initial injury.” Claimant Brief at 

10. Employer clearly was aware that Claimant had problems with his neck because

it had been paying for his cervical epidural injections.5 Indeed, the issue of the 

herniated cervical discs was fully reviewed. Claimant contends that under Section 

413 of the Act, an incorrect NCP may be corrected at any time and in any proceeding. 

Accordingly, the WCJ properly overruled Employer’s objection to Dr. Wertz’s 

testimony that Claimant’s work incident caused cervical disc herniations.

We begin our analysis with a review of Section 413 of the Act, which 

states, in pertinent part, as follows:

A workers’ compensation judge may, at any time, review and 

modify or set aside a notice of compensation payable and an 

original or supplemental agreement or upon petition filed by 

either party with the department, or in the course of the 

proceedings under any petition pending before such workers’

compensation judge, if it be proved that such notice of 

compensation payable or agreement was in any material respect 

incorrect.

A workers’ compensation judge designated by the department 

may, at any time, modify, reinstate, suspend, or terminate a 

notice of compensation payable, an original or supplemental 

agreement or any award of the department or its workers’

compensation judge, upon petition filed by either party with the 

department, upon proof that the disability of an injured employe 

has increased, decreased, recurred, or has temporarily or finally 

ceased, or that the status of any dependent has changed.... 

Provided, That, except in the case of eye injuries, no notice of 

compensation payable, agreement or award shall be reviewed, 

or modified, or reinstated, unless a petition is filed with the 

department within three years after the date of the most recent 

5 Employer concedes in its brief that its termination petition “was aimed at [Employer’s] 

continuing responsibility for this treatment [of epidural steroid injections].” Employer Brief at 23.
10

payment of compensation made prior to the filing of such 

petition.... And provided further, That where compensation has 

been suspended because the employe’s earnings are equal to or 

in excess of his wages prior to the injury that payments under the 

agreement or award may be resumed at any time during the 

period for which compensation for partial disability is 

payable, unless it be shown that the loss in earnings does not 

result from the disability due to the injury.

77 P.S. §§771-772 (emphasis added). In sum, an NCP may not be modified unless 

a petition is filed within three years of the most recent payment of compensation, but 

it may be “corrected” at any time.

In Cinram Manufacturing, 975 A.2d at 580-81, the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court interpreted the first paragraph of Section 413 to mean that 

“corrective amendments” to an accepted work injury do not require a review 

petition.6 Rather, the WCJ can order the correction where the evidence supports it. 

The Supreme Court cautioned, however, that due process requires that an employer 

be given a reasonable opportunity to contest a corrective amendment:

It should also be noted that the language of Section 413(a) is 

discretionary—a workers’ compensation judge “may” at any 

time correct a notice of compensation payable.... The 

Legislature therefore contemplated that there are circumstances 

in which it would be inappropriate for a workers’ compensation 

judge to direct a corrective amendment of a notice of 

compensation payable, including in a termination proceeding.[] 

Moreover, the procedures applied by a workers’ compensation 

judge must obviously comport with due process norms, . . . ; and, 

therefore, reasonable prior notice and a fair opportunity to 

respond must be provided to the employer prior to the 

implementation of a corrective amendment....

6 On the other hand, where a claimant develops a new injury as a consequence of the original 

injury, the WCJ cannot add that injury to the NCP without a review petition. Cinram 

Manufacturing, 975 A.2d at 581.
11

Id. at 582 (internal citations and footnote omitted) (emphasis added). “Whether an 

employer has had a fair opportunity to contest the corrective amendment is 

determined on a case-by-case basis by looking at the totality of circumstances.” 

Walter v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Evangelical Community 

Hospital), 128 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).

In Cinram Manufacturing, the NCP described the work injury as a 

lumbar strain/sprain. In the termination proceeding, the claimant’s medical expert 

testified that the work injury was an aggravation of a preexisting disc herniation that 

caused nerve impingement. The WCJ credited that evidence; denied the termination 

petition; and amended the NCP to include nerve impingement. The Supreme Court 

affirmed the corrective amendment, noting that the employer’s experts addressed the 

nerve impingement in their testimony and opined that it was unrelated to the work 

incident. Further, the employer did not specify what other evidence it would have 

presented had it been given express notice that the claimant sought a corrective 

amendment. Cinram Manufacturing, 975 A.2d at 582 n.8. 

In Walter, in a termination proceeding, the WCJ amended the NCP to 

include left suprascapular neuropathy, from which the claimant had not fully 

recovered. The Board reversed the WCJ for the stated reason that the employer did 

not have notice that the injury description was at issue in the termination proceeding. 

On further appeal, this Court reversed the Board. We concluded that the employer 

had adequate notice of the corrective amendment because it was announced on the 

first day of the hearing, and the medical experts of both parties testified about the 

claimant’s chronic suprascapular neuropathy and whether it was work-related. The 

employer had a fair opportunity to contest the corrective amendment because it was 
12

“unclear what additional evidence [the employer] could have presented on whether 

the suprascapular neuropathy was work-related.” Walter, 128 A.3d at 374-75. 

Here, both the medical-only NCP and the NCP described the work 

injury as acute strain of the upper back and thoracic spine. However, Claimant has 

been treating for his cervical pain, and Employer has paid for his cervical epidural 

injections. At the first WCJ hearing on October 24, 2018, both parties agreed that 

“[they were] talking about [Claimant’s] neck and upper-back area.” Hearing 

Transcript, 10/24/2018, at 6-7; C.R., Item 9, at 6-7 (emphasis added). 

Further, Employer’s medical expert, Dr. Ko, testified that Claimant’s 

work injury involved a neck strain. He also opined that the herniated discs were not 

work-related or medically significant. Employer cross-examined Dr. Wertz on his 

opinion that Claimant’s work injury included cervical disc herniations. It is unclear 

what other evidence Employer would have presented had it been given express 

notice of the corrective amendment. Cinram Manufacturing, 975 A.2d at 582 n.8; 

Walter, 128 A.3d at 375. We conclude that Employer had a fair opportunity to 

contest the corrective amendment to Claimant’s NCP. 

We reject Employer’s argument that the three-year statute of limitations 

in Section 413 of the Act requires a different result. In Fitzgibbons v. Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 999 A.2d 659, 663-64 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2010), this Court pointed out that the first paragraph of Section 413 of the 

Act applies when a party is seeking to correct an NCP, and the second paragraph 

applies when a party is seeking to expand the description of the work injury to 

include consequential injuries, i.e., injuries that occurred as a result of the work 

injury after issuance of the NCP. In either case, a petition must be filed within three 

years of the most recent payment of compensation. 
13

Here, it was in the course of Employer’s termination petition that the 

WCJ corrected the NCP based on the evidence presented in the proceeding. The 

WCJ is allowed to do so “at any time ... in the course of the proceedings under any 

petition pending” before the WCJ, “if it be proved that such notice of compensation 

payable or agreement was in any material respect incorrect.” Section 413 of the Act, 

77 P.S. §771. Accordingly, the Board did not err in concluding that the WCJ’s 

corrective amendment of the NCP to include the disc herniations at C5-6 and C6-7 

did not violate Section 413 of the Act or Employer’s due process rights. The WCJ 

properly allowed Dr. Wertz’s testimony that Claimant’s work incident caused more 

injuries than an acute strain of the upper back and thoracic spine.

II. Substantial Evidence

Employer argues that, in any case, substantial evidence does not 

support the WCJ’s finding that the disc herniations at C5-6 and C6-7 were part of 

the December 9, 2013, work injury. Dr. Ko testified that disc herniations at those 

levels would cause radiating pain, which Claimant does not have. As such, 

Employer asserts that its termination petition should have been granted because Dr. 

Ko testified that Claimant fully recovered from his acute strain of the upper back

and thoracic spine, which was the only injury listed on Employer’s NCPs. 

Claimant counters that Dr. Ko did not contest the MRI findings that 

Claimant has suffered cervical disc herniations. Further, Dr. Ko’s testimony that 

Claimant has fully recovered from the work injury was not supported by his IME, 

which revealed that Claimant still experiences pain in his right shoulder. Similarly, 

there was no evidence of either a preexisting condition or an intervening event that 

could have contributed to Claimant’s herniated discs; rather, Claimant’s symptoms 

have been persistent since the 2013 work injury. Claimant contends that the WCJ 
14

did not err in crediting Dr. Wertz’s testimony, who treated Claimant and provided 

cervical epidural injections since 2016. We agree. 

Dr. Ko opined that the cervical disc herniations were not work-related 

because Claimant did not experience radiating pain in his arm, a typical 

symptomatology for a herniated disc at C6-7. Nevertheless, Dr. Ko acknowledged

that Claimant does have herniated cervical discs as found in the MRIs. By contrast, 

Dr. Wertz testified that Claimant’s complaints of pain correlated with the MRI 

findings and have been consistent throughout the course of treatment. Dr. Wertz 

thus opined that the cervical disc herniations were caused by the 2013 work injury, 

and there was no evidence that Claimant sustained any other trauma that could have 

caused the herniations. The WCJ credited Dr. Wertz’s testimony over Dr. Ko’s, and 

this is the prerogative of the factfinder. Casne v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal

Board (Stat Couriers, Inc.), 962 A.2d 14, 17-19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (prerogative of 

the WCJ to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded

evidence). 

The relevant inquiry in a substantial evidence analysis is not whether 

“there is evidence in the record which supports a factual finding contrary to that 

made by the WCJ” but, rather, “whether there is any evidence which supports the 

WCJ’s factual finding.” Hoffmaster v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board 

(Senco Products, Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152, 1155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). The Court must 

view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party that prevailed before the 

factfinder. In light of the above, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to 

support the WCJ’s finding that Claimant has not fully recovered from the 2013 work 

injury, which included disc herniations at the C5-6 and C6-7 levels. The Board thus 

did not err in affirming the WCJ’s denial of Employer’s termination petition. 
15

Conclusion

The WCJ was empowered under Section 413 of the Act to amend the 

description of Claimant’s work injury where the evidence proved that the NCP was

materially incorrect. Employer had a fair opportunity to contest the corrective 

amendment. Substantial evidence supports the WCJ’s finding that Claimant 

sustained herniated discs in the 2013 work incident and has not fully recovered from 

the injuries. As such, the WCJ did not err in amending the NCP to include disc 

herniations at the C5-6 and C6-7 levels and in denying Employer’s termination 

petition.

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s June 4, 2020, adjudication.

 _____________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

City of Allentown, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 593 C.D. 2020

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board :

(Bryant, Jr.), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 11th day of March, 2021, the adjudication of the 

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter, dated June 4,

2020, is hereby AFFIRMED. 

 _____________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge