IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Chester Water Authority, : 

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 824 C.D. 2023

: Submitted: June 4, 2024

Charles Swiggett (Workers’ :

Compensation Appeal Board), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge 

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: August 28, 2024

Chester Water Authority (Employer) has petitioned for this Court’s 

review of an adjudication of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that 

granted Charles Swiggett’s (Claimant) claim petition. In doing so, the Board 

affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) decision, as modified,

1

that 

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in the nature of an aggravation of preexisting lumbar spine degenerative disease and lumbar radiculopathy. We affirm 

the Board.

Background

Claimant worked for Employer as a laborer and suffered a low back 

injury after shoveling snow on January 26, 2016. By decision of May 10, 2018, the 

WCJ determined that Claimant sustained an aggravation of facet joint pathology at 

1 The Board modified the WCJ’s decision to clarify benefits were payable at the compensation rate 

shown in Employer’s statement of wages. 
2

L3-4 and L4-5 and, thus, awarded compensation benefits.

2

 Claimant’s benefits were 

suspended based upon his return to work without loss of earnings on October 10, 

2017. On February 24, 2020, Employer filed a petition to terminate compensation 

benefits, alleging that Claimant had fully recovered from the 2016 work injury as of

February 12, 2020. On July 13, 2021, the WCJ granted Employer’s termination 

petition. 

On December 22, 2021, Claimant filed a claim petition alleging that on 

January 20, 2021, he sustained a low back injury after “[p]erforming heavy work on 

repetitive basis.” R.R. 5a. On January 27, 2021, Claimant filed a reinstatement 

petition alleging that on January 21, 2021, he sustained a “[w]orsening of 

[c]ondition,” and that the disability caused by the 2016 injury had recurred. 

Reproduced Record at 377a (R.R. ___). Claimant’s two petitions were consolidated 

for a hearing before the WCJ.

Claimant testified in person on February 10, 2022, and presented his 

deposition testimony of April 15, 2021. Claimant also presented his in-person 

testimony taken on January 12, 2021, before the WCJ during the termination petition

proceeding. In sum, Claimant testified that his job duties with Employer included 

lifting heavy items such as concrete, using a jackhammer, digging, and crawling 

underground. After the 2016 injury, he resumed his regular job. In July 2020, while 

lifting a pump from a truck, Claimant sustained a hernia, for which he underwent 

surgery in August 2020. Thereafter, in October 2020, he returned to work in a lightduty capacity and one month later returned to his full-duty position. On January 20, 

2021, while using a 120-pound jackhammer on concrete and blacktop, his back 

started hurting severely. 

2

In various points in the record, “facet joint pathology” is also referred to as “facet arthropathy.”
3

Claimant treated with Venkatesh Sundararajan, M.D., for his 2016 

injury and continued treating with him after the January 20, 2021, incident. Claimant 

acknowledged that his medical treatment has not changed over the years, and his 

physical condition remained the same.

Claimant presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Sundararajan, who 

is board certified in anesthesiology and pain management. He has been treating 

Claimant for his low back pain with epidural steroid injections, medications, and 

physical therapy. Claimant received an epidural injection at L4-5 in September 2020 

and reported pain relief in October and November 2020. In December 2020, after 

he resumed a full-duty position, Claimant’s back pain returned, and Dr. Sundararajan 

recommended magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to see if there was a “new 

pathology” or an “exacerbation of his low back pain.” Sundararajan Dep. at 25; R.R. 

147a. The MRI taken on January 8, 2021, showed multiple areas of degenerative 

change, including herniations at L3-4 and L4-5 with nerve root impingement. 

Sundararajan Dep. at 27-28; R.R. 149a-50a. 

Dr. Sundararajan testified that he reinstated Claimant’s work 

restrictions on January 20, 2021, when Claimant reported increased low back pain. 

Based upon the MRI findings and his examination, Dr. Sundararajan diagnosed 

Claimant with low back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, intervertebral disc 

displacement, and lumbar spondylosis. Dr. Sundararajan testified that Claimant’s 

daily work duties, coupled with the hernia he sustained in July 2020 and the 

subsequent surgery, contributed to Claimant’s low back symptoms and inability to 

perform his pre-injury job. He explained as follows:

So, [I am] pretty sure what happened is that the hernia caused a 

deconditioning of his support structures or core muscles, leading 

to more [] injury or more complaints of low back pain and 

radicular symptoms. 
4

And since the hernia surgery, [he has] had more low back pain 

and leg complaints because of the structures not supporting his 

low back when he went back to work.

. . . .

I think the increase in pathology [from November 23, 2020, until 

January 20, 2021, while Claimant was working at his full-duty 

position] was caused by the disc herniations in his lumbar spine 

impinging upon the nerve roots. And they were more likely put 

in that precarious position because he [was not] able to kind of 

support the movements of the spine because of his deconditioned 

support structure.

Sundararajan Dep. at 47-48; R.R. 169a-70a.

On cross-examination, Dr. Sundararajan acknowledged that Claimant’s 

pain has “wax[ed] and wan[ed] over the years.” Sundararajan Dep. at 68; R.R. 190a. 

He saw Claimant on a monthly basis and his diagnoses have remained the same since 

2020. Accordingly, there has been no change in Claimant’s medical treatment plan. 

In response, Employer presented the deposition testimony of Richard 

Meagher, M.D., a board-certified neurologist. Dr. Meagher testified that he 

evaluated Claimant on February 12, 2020, and again on April 27, 2021. Claimant 

presented the same low back pain, and he denied new injuries. Dr. Meagher’s 

examination found no objective signs of facet arthropathy or worsening or 

aggravation of his low back condition. Claimant’s medical records through March 

2021 showed the same pattern of treatment over the past years. Dr. Meagher 

reviewed the actual film of Claimant’s MRI taken in January 2021 and saw lumbar

spondylosis, which is a degenerative change appropriate for Claimant’s age. The 

MRI did not reveal an acute injury. Dr. Meagher disagreed with the radiologist’s 

reading of the film and found no disc herniation but an osteophyte. There was no 

nerve root compression that would cause radicular complaints. 
5

Dr. Meagher testified that he compared the 2021 MRI with an MRI 

Claimant took in 2016. Again, he disagreed with the radiologist’s reading of the 

2016 study and opined that the two MRI reports showed the same degenerative 

findings. The 2016 MRI report described nerve root impingement, but none was 

reported in the 2021 study. 

In sum, Dr. Meagher testified that Claimant’s condition has remained 

the same since 2020, and he considered Claimant fully recovered from the lumbar 

sprain and strain and aggravation that he sustained in 2016. Dr. Meagher found no

new injury or worsening of condition or aggravation of any work injury when he 

saw Claimant in April 2021.

WCJ’s Decisions

On August 16, 2022, the WCJ denied Claimant’s reinstatement petition

and concluded that Claimant did not sustain a worsening of his 2016 injury, from 

which he had fully recovered. The WCJ granted the claim petition. Crediting 

Claimant’s testimony, the WCJ found that on January 20, 2021, Claimant sustained 

an aggravation of his pre-existing lumbar spine degenerative disease and lumbar 

radiculopathy while performing heavy work for Employer after his return to work 

from the hernia surgery. The WCJ credited Dr. Sundararajan’s testimony over Dr. 

Meagher’s because Dr. Sundararajan had the benefit of years of treating Claimant. 

Further, Dr. Meagher failed to acknowledge the possibility that the heavy-duty work 

performed by Claimant after being out of work for four months recovering from the 

hernia surgery may have aggravated Claimant’s chronic low back condition. Dr. 

Meagher also did not adequately explain his opinion that Claimant’s continuing to 

perform heavy-duty work, including digging and using a jackhammer, did not 

aggravate his chronic low back condition. 
6

The Board affirmed the WCJ’s grant of the claim petition. It rejected 

Employer’s argument that the WCJ’s finding of full recovery from the aggravation 

of facet arthropathy at L3-4 and L4-5 precluded a finding that Claimant sustained

another injury to his low back. Dr. Sundararajan credibly testified that Claimant’s 

work duties led to an increase in pain that resulted in disability. 

Employer appealed to this Court.

Appeal

On appeal,3 Employer argues that the WCJ’s finding that Claimant 

sustained a new or aggravated low back injury on January 20, 2021, was not 

supported by substantial evidence. Claimant’s 2016 work injury, i.e., aggravation 

of facet joint pathology at L3-4 and L4-5, had returned to its baseline. In denying 

Claimant’s reinstatement petition, the WCJ found no recurrence or worsening of the 

2016 work injury. The same findings in support of the denial of the reinstatement 

petition cannot support an aggravation of or a new low back injury. Claimant had a 

“mere manifestation of symptoms from a past discrete injury.” Employer Brief at 

18 (quoting City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board 

(Williams), 851 A.2d 838, 842 (Pa. 2004)). Both Claimant and Dr. Sundararajan

acknowledged that his chronic lumbar pain has “wax[ed] and wan[ed] over the 

years.” Employer Brief at 21 (quoting Sundararajan Dep. at 68; R.R. 190a)). Dr.

Sundararajan offered the same diagnosis before and after January 20, 2021, and 

Claimant reported the same fluctuating pain before and after January 2021. 

Employer argues that Dr. Meagher’s testimony “underscored the lack of evidence of 

3 This Court’s review of a workers’ compensation adjudication determines whether an error of law 

or a constitutional violation was committed or whether the findings of fact are supported by 

substantial, competent evidence. Myers v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (University of 

Pennsylvania and Alexsis, Inc.), 782 A.2d 1108, 1110 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).
7

any actual change in Claimant’s condition as of January 20, 2021.” Employer Brief 

at 25 (emphasis in original omitted).

Claimant, who did not file a brief, has not offered a response to 

Employer’s argument.

The WCJ credited Claimant’s testimony that upon his return to fullduty work in November 2020, his back pain returned and that on January 20, 2021, 

while Claimant was using a 120-pound jackhammer, Claimant’s back began hurting 

severely. The WCJ also credited Dr. Sundararajan’s diagnosis that as of January 20, 

2021, Claimant had lumbar region radiculopathy, low back pain, intervertebral disc 

displacement, and lumbar spondylosis. The WCJ credited Dr. Sundararajan’s 

testimony that Claimant’s daily work duties, coupled with his deconditioned state

after the hernia surgery, caused additional low back pain and, ultimately, an inability

to perform his pre-injury work as of January 20, 2021. The WCJ rejected Dr. 

Meagher’s contrary testimony for the stated reasons that Dr. Sundararajan has 

treated Claimant for years, and Dr. Meagher failed to acknowledge the possibility 

that Claimant’s ongoing heavy-duty work, which he performed after being out of 

work for four months recovering from the hernia surgery, may have aggravated 

Claimant’s chronic low back condition. Based upon the credited lay and medical

evidence, the WCJ found, as fact, that Claimant “sustained an aggravation of his preexisting lumbar spine degenerative disease and lumbar radiculopathy from 

performing his heavy duty position . . . for [] Employer after his return to work from 

hernia surgery.” WCJ Decision, 8/16/2022, at 11; Finding of Fact No. 17. 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) (“A reviewing court 

does not reweigh evidence or review witness credibility[;]” it is the prerogative of 
8

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 hold that the record supports the WCJ’s finding 

that the January 20, 2021, work incident caused an aggravation of Claimant’s preexisting lumbar spine degenerative disease and lumbar radiculopathy. The Board 

did not err in affirming the WCJ’s decision.

Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the WCJ’s finding that 

Claimant sustained a work-related aggravation of lumbar spine degenerative disease 

and lumbar radiculopathy is supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm 

the Board’s July 5, 2023, adjudication.

 ____________________________________________

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

Chester Water Authority, : 

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 824 C.D. 2023

:

Charles Swiggett (Workers’ :

Compensation Appeal Board), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2024, the Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board’s adjudication, dated July 5, 2023, in the abovecaptioned matter, is AFFIRMED.

 ____________________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita