IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Amazon.com, :

Petitioner :

: No. 1828 C.D. 2014

v. :

: Submitted: May 22, 2015

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Davidson), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge

HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: August 5, 2015

Amazon.com (Employer) petitions for review of the September 10, 2014 

order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the 

decision of a workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) denying Employer’s termination 

petition and granting the review and reinstatement petitions filed by Leon Davidson 

(Claimant). We affirm.

By way of a March 30, 2011 Notice of Temporary Compensation 

Payable (NTCP), Employer acknowledged that Claimant sustained a work-related 

lumbar spine sprain on February 23, 2011. The NTCP converted to a Notice of 

Compensation Payable (NCP) by operation of law.1 Claimant’s benefits were 

 

1

See Notice of Conversion of Temporary Compensation Payable to Compensation Payable. 

(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 7a.)
2

suspended effective August 30, 2011, based on his return to work with no loss of 

earnings. On November 16, 2011, Claimant filed reinstatement and penalty petitions, 

which were resolved by an approved stipulation providing that Claimant’s benefits 

were reinstated for a closed period and suspended as of his return to work on January 

10, 2012. 

On February 20, 2012, Claimant filed a reinstatement petition alleging a 

worsening of his condition and a recurrence of disability. Also on that date, Claimant 

filed a review petition seeking to include aggravation of degenerative disc disease of 

the lumbar spine, lumbar facet syndrome, and L5-S1 arthropathy to the description of 

his work injury. Subsequently, Employer filed a termination petition alleging that

Claimant had fully recovered effective March 15, 2012. The petitions were 

consolidated and assigned to a WCJ. 

Claimant testified before the WCJ on December 20, 2011. He noted that 

his regular job as a packer required him to grab boxes weighing up to fifty pounds 

from a conveyor line and place them onto different pallets, depending on weight and 

product type. Claimant stated that on February 23, 2011, he began experiencing back 

pain that worsened as the day continued. Claimant completed his shift and went to 

work the following morning. Claimant said that he was still in pain and reported the 

incident to Employer, who sent him to the nurse and then instructed him to go home. 

(R.R. at 34a-37a.)

Claimant testified that he was examined by Employer’s panel physician, 

Debra Gorski, M.D. (Dr. Gorski), on February 28, 2011. Dr. Gorski diagnosed a low 

back sprain, scheduled an MRI, and referred Claimant to physical therapy for the next 

several months. In late May 2011, Dr. Gorski referred Claimant to Terence Duffy, 
3

M.D. (Dr. Duffy), a pain management consultant. Dr. Duffy treated Claimant with a 

series of epidural steroid injections and a lesioning procedure. (R.R. at 37a-40a.)

Claimant stated that, with permission of Dr. Gorski and Dr. Duffy, he 

returned to modified light-duty work on August 29, 2011, with restrictions that 

included no pushing and pulling more than fifteen pounds and no lifting more than 

ten to fifteen pounds. Claimant testified that he continued in his modified light-duty 

position until November 14, 2011, when Employer informed him that he must return 

to full-duty work because his condition had resolved. Claimant testified that he had 

not returned to work since November 14, 2011, and that, as of the date of the 

December 20, 2011 hearing, he had not been released to return to work by either Dr. 

Duffy or Dr. Gorski. (R.R. at 40a-42a.) 

Claimant acknowledged that he had previously received treatment for 

back pain approximately fifteen to twenty years ago while he was working in the 

construction industry. Claimant stated that he fully recovered from this prior lower 

back injury and that he did not sustain or receive treatment for any type of back injury 

from the beginning of his term of employment with Employer in 2008 until the work 

injury on February 23, 2011. (R.R. at 38a-39a; WCJ’s Finding of Fact No. 12.) 

At the April 3, 2012 hearing, Claimant testified that chiropractic 

treatment had relieved some of his symptoms, and Dr. Duffy had permitted him to 

attempt to return to work in late December 2011. Claimant stated that he returned to 

full-duty work on January 10, 2012, and was placed in the middle of the work line. 

He described the position as similar to his pre-injury job, involving bending, twisting, 

and lifting merchandise weighing up to forty pounds. (R.R. at 67a-69a.)

Claimant stated that when he returned to work his symptoms recurred, 

but he was able to continue working for two weeks before he began to experience 
4

more severe pain. On January 24, 2012, Claimant advised his supervisor that he was 

experiencing pain in his back and down both legs. After Claimant’s supervisor took 

him to the nurse’s station, Claimant was sent home, and he returned to Dr. Duffy for 

treatment shortly thereafter. Claimant testified that he did not believe he was capable 

of returning to his pre-injury position. (R.R. at 69a-70a.)

Claimant testified before the WCJ again on November 19, 2012. He 

stated that he had not worked since the April 2012 hearing and still had pain in his 

back that radiated down both legs. Claimant said that he did not recall being treated 

by Dr. Duffy for his previous back injury in 2006 or 2007. However, Claimant 

stipulated that his earlier testimony concerning the date of his prior back injury was 

mistaken and that the injury did not occur fifteen or twenty years ago but instead in 

2006 or 2007. (R.R. at 179a, 183a-87a.)

In support of his petitions, Claimant also offered the deposition

testimony of Dr. Duffy, who is board certified in internal medicine, physical 

medicine and rehabilitation, and pain medicine. Dr. Duffy testified that he first 

evaluated Claimant for the specific work injury on May 31, 2011, after referral by Dr. 

Gorski. Dr. Duffy stated that he reviewed Claimant’s medical records, including a 

March 9, 2011 MRI, which showed degenerative changes at L3-L4 through L5-S1 

and mild disc bulging at L5-S1. Dr. Duffy’s final diagnosis for Claimant’s February 

23, 2011 work injury was lower back pain, lumbar facet syndrome, lumbar radiculitis, 

lumbar disc degeneration, and lumbar spondylosis. Dr. Duffy testified that 

Claimant’s underlying arthropathy, or degeneration of the facet joints, was caused by 

age-related wear and tear and was aggravated by Claimant’s work activities. (R.R. at 

97a-103a.)
5

Dr. Duffy’s physical examination of Claimant revealed tenderness in the 

lower lumbar area, no sacroiliac pain, unremarkable straight leg raise, and a nonfocal 

neurological exam. He performed bilateral lumbar facet blocks on Claimant in June 

and July 2011. Dr. Duffy noted that Claimant responded well to the injections and

that the treatments provided good short-term relief. Dr. Duffy evaluated Claimant in 

late July and recommended radiofrequency lesioning, which he performed on August 

12, 2011. (R.R. at 104a-09a.)

Dr. Duffy testified that he next treated Claimant on September 7, 2011. 

Claimant had returned to work a month earlier, but was only able to work for two 

days before the increased non-radiating lower back pain returned. Dr. Duffy testified 

that he treated Claimant on October 19, 2011, at which time Claimant was taken out 

of work due to increased lumbar pain and placed in physical therapy. Dr. Duffy 

noted that Claimant had returned to modified duty and was reporting an increase in 

non-radiating lower lumbar pain with increased work duties. (R.R. at 110a-12a.) 

Dr. Duffy testified that he saw Claimant on November 28, 2011, at 

which point Claimant’s physical therapy had been discontinued and Claimant was 

released from his light duty job at Amazon due to a lack of available modified-duty

work. Dr. Duffy reported that during Claimant’s next visit on December 28, 2011, he 

experienced lumbar pain with extension but he exhibited some improvement after 

undergoing chiropractic treatment. Dr. Duffy stated that he released Claimant on a 

trial basis to full-duty, unrestricted work to see how Claimant would tolerate it. (R.R. 

at 112a-16a.) 

Dr. Duffy testified that he next saw Claimant on February 2, 2012; 

Claimant had worked for Employer for ten days but was unable to continue due to 

increasing low back pain and lower extremity radiating pain. Dr. Duffy stated that 
6

Claimant underwent an MRI on February 13, 2012, which showed evidence of facet 

degenerative changes at L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1 and increased degeneration at L3-5 

and L5-S1, which was causing narrowing of the thecal sac and the foramen, 

respectively. Dr. Duffy examined Claimant again on February 21, 2012, and 

performed interlaminer epidural steroid injections on March 2, and March 28, 2012. 

(R.R. at 116a-21a.) 

Dr. Duffy opined with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that 

Claimant’s back pain was due to a preexisting underlying arthritic process that was 

significantly aggravated by Claimant’s work activities, rendering Claimant disabled 

from January 25, 2012, through the present. (R.R. at 123a-25a.)

During cross-examination, Dr. Duffy stated that Claimant’s injury was a 

progressive injury, related to Claimant’s repetitive work activities. Dr. Duffy 

testified that Claimant was more susceptible to low back pain as a result of previous 

back problems and a degree of arthritic changes. Dr. Duffy noted that Claimant is 

obese and acknowledged that extra weight can cause stress on the lower back. (R.R. 

at 129a-30a.) 

Dr. Duffy did not recall whether he reviewed an MRI from May 2006, 

and he testified as follows:

Q. If the MRI from 2006 reflected disc dessication at 

L5-S1 with bulges at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1, would that 

affect your opinion in any way?

A. In regards to his work injury?

Q. In regards to the progression of his condition.

A. I would really want to take a look at how much facet 

joint arthritis he was getting, how much enlargement of the 

facet joints occurred between 2006 and 2011, what levels 

they were at, those types of things. 
7

Q. So is it safe to say you would want to see those films 

to compare them?

A. If I’m being asked if there’s been that much of a 

progression of the degeneration, yes.

Q. Are you aware that he had problems with his back 

going back even 15 to 20 years earlier?

A. Again, I don’t have the older records. I’m not really 

sure. He very well may have. My question would be, what 

was the nature of the back problems at that time. 

(R.R. at 141a-42a.) Dr. Duffy said that he currently would describe Claimant at best 

as functioning at the sedentary level. (R.R. at 144a.) 

Dr. Duffy recalled that he previously treated Claimant for low back pain 

while he was with another practice, sometime between March 2006 and December 

2009. He no longer had access to those medical records and did not remember the 

exact dates, but he agreed that the time period was approximately 2006. Dr. Duffy 

testified that Claimant’s low back pain had been successfully treated with facet 

injections, and he remembered that Claimant “had a very good response.” (R.R. at 

140a-41a.) “We did extremely well and to my knowledge, [he] did not have any 

reoccurrence of his back pain until the work activities of February of 2011.” (R.R. at 

125a-26a.)

In support of its termination petition, Employer presented the July 19, 

2012 deposition testimony of Allister Williams, M.D. (Dr. Williams), who is board 

certified in orthopedic surgery and conducted independent medical examinations 

(IMEs) of Claimant on August 30, 2011, and March 15, 2012. 

The first IME took place one day after Claimant began modified light 

duty work for Employer. Dr. Williams testified that Claimant’s symptoms and 

medical history included buttock pain, right leg pain, and proximal thigh pain. He 
8

stated that Claimant did not provide him with any history of back treatment prior to 

his work injury. Dr. Williams testified that when he conducted the physical 

examination, he noted no tenderness or palpation or percussion in the lumbar spine, 

and a full range of motion, adding that Claimant’s sensation was intact, and Claimant 

executed a straight leg raise without significant pain. (R.R. at 156a-57a.)

At that time, Dr. Williams diagnosed Claimant with a lumbar sprainstrain injury that had resolved. Dr. Williams said that such injuries normally resolve 

within six to twelve weeks, and it had been well over six weeks from Claimant’s 

injury. He stated that Claimant had returned to work, and, in light of his findings on 

physical examination, “it seemed like the strain had resolved.” (R.R. at 157a.) Dr. 

Williams also testified that Claimant had spondylosis, which is a degenerative 

arthritic change associated with the facet joints and synonymous with facet 

arthropathy. Dr. Williams recommended that Claimant continue to perform only 

light-duty work for another month before returning to full-duty work. Dr. Williams 

testified that, even though he felt Claimant’s lumbar strain/sprain had resolved, he did 

not release Claimant to full duty work on August 30, 2011, because Claimant had a 

strenuous job and he wanted Claimant to have a “ramp-up period.” (Id.) 

Dr. Williams conducted the second IME on March 15, 2012, two months 

after Claimant last worked for Employer. At that visit, Claimant informed Dr. 

Williams that he had a previous back injury twenty years ago that had resolved prior 

to his work injury. Dr. Williams said that he reviewed an August 31, 2007 MRI, 

which showed only lumbar spondylosis. Dr. Williams stated that he reviewed an 

MRI of Claimant’s lumbar spine performed on February 13, 2012, which showed 

some S1 joint inflammation and disc bulges. Dr. Williams opined that Claimant’s 

symptoms as of March 12, 2012, were consistent with pre-existing lumbar 
9

spondylosis, not a work-related injury. Dr. Williams found that Claimant had full 

rotation of the lumbar spine, Claimant’s strength was a five out of five, and 

Claimant’s straight leg raise test was negative and showed no radiculopathy. Dr. 

Williams testified that he completed an Affidavit of Recovery on March 15, 2012. 

(R.R. at 157a-59a.) 

On cross examination, Dr. Williams acknowledged that he did not have 

any medical records from 2007 to 2011 indicating that Claimant was treated for any 

ongoing symptoms related to his back. Dr. Williams testified that he had reviewed 

the occupational health records of Dr. Gorski and noted her March 21, 2011, 

diagnosis of sacral sprain, degenerative disease and facet arthropathy, L5-S1. Dr. 

Williams disagreed with Dr. Gorski’s diagnosis that Claimant’s work injury was 

more than a lumbar sprain-strain, which had resolved. (R.R. at 161a-66a.)

The WCJ accepted Claimant’s testimony as generally credible and 

persuasive. The WCJ specifically credited Claimant’s description of the work injury 

on February 23, 2011, and his ongoing disability thereafter, including his inability to 

continue working on and after January 25, 2012. The WCJ noted that Claimant was

not a good historian regarding dates and time periods and explained that his 

determination was based upon his personal observation of Claimant’s demeanor at 

multiple hearings. The WCJ noted an absence of medical records indicating that 

Claimant had received any medical treatment for his low back from 2007 to 2011, 

and Dr. Duffy’s credible corroborating medical testimony. (WCJ’s Finding of Fact 

No. 47.)

The WCJ accepted Dr. Duffy’s medical opinions as competent, credible, 

and persuasive for purposes of establishing that Claimant’s February 23, 2011 work 

injury includes an aggravation of his pre-existing degenerative disc disease, lumbar 
10

facet syndrome, and arthropathy or degeneration of the lumbar facet joints, finding 

that those conditions were significantly aggravated by Claimant’s work activities in 

February 2011 as well as Claimant’s return to work in January 2012. The WCJ stated 

that Dr. Duffy’s opinions were consistent with the opinions of Claimant’s treating 

and evaluating physicians, supported by diagnostic studies, findings on physical 

examination, and Claimant’s credible testimony. The WCJ further accepted Dr. 

Duffy’s opinion that Claimant was disabled from performing his pre-injury duties on 

and after January 25, 2012. (WCJ’s Finding of Fact No. 48.)

The WCJ rejected Dr. Williams’ testimony and opinions to the extent 

they were inconsistent with the testimony and opinions of Dr. Duffy. The WCJ noted 

that Dr. Williams saw Claimant on only two occasions, whereas Dr. Duffy treated 

Claimant on numerous occasions for an extended period of time. (WCJ’s Finding of 

Fact No. 49.)

Based on these credibility determinations, the WCJ granted Claimant’s 

review petition and amended Claimant’s description of injury to include an 

aggravation of pre-existing degenerative disk disease of the lumbar spine, lumbar 

facet syndrome, and arthropathy or degeneration of the lumbar facet joints. Further, 

the WCJ found that these conditions resulted in Claimant’s temporary total disability 

as of January 25, 2012, granted Claimant’s reinstatement petition, and denied 

Employer’s termination petition.

Employer appealed to the Board, asserting that Dr. Duffy’s testimony 

was incompetent and equivocal, Claimant’s testimony lacked credibility, the WCJ 

should have credited Dr. Williams’ superior testimony, and the WCJ failed to issue a 

reasoned decision. The Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision and specifically rejected
11

Employer’s contentions. Subsequently, Employer filed an application for supersedeas 

with this Court, which was denied on January 6, 2015.

On appeal,

2

Employer argues that Dr. Duffy’s testimony was not 

competent to establish that Claimant suffered additional injuries beyond those

recognized in the NCP and that the WCJ failed to issue a reasoned decision as 

required under section 422(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).3 

Initially, we note that it is a fundamental principle of workers’ 

compensation law that the WCJ is the final arbiter of witness credibility and 

evidentiary weight. Hoang v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Howmet 

Aluminum Casting, Inc.), 51 A.3d 905, 909 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). The WCJ may 

accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. Id. A WCJ’s 

credibility and evidentiary determinations are binding on appeal unless made 

arbitrarily and capriciously, Casne v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (STAT 

Couriers, Inc.), 962 A.2d 14, 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), and this Court is precluded 

from disturbing the WCJ’s findings of fact if they are supported by substantial 

competent evidence. Callahan v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board 

(Bethlehem Steel Corp.), 571 A.2d 1108, 1110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).

Employer asserts that Dr. Duffy’s testimony was not competent to 

establish an aggravation of a pre-existing condition because Dr. Duffy did not recall 

treating Claimant after his 2006 injury and did not review the medical records 

associated with that previous injury. In making this argument, Employer disregards 

 

2 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether findings of fact are supported by 

substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights 

have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §704.

3 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §834.
12

Dr. Duffy’s testimony that Claimant had a very good response to treatment for his 

prior injury. More important, with respect to expressions of medical opinion, it is 

well settled that an expert’s opinion is rendered incompetent only if it is based solely 

on inaccurate or false information. DeGraw v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal 

Board (Redner’s Warehouse Markets, Inc.), 926 A.2d 997, 1001 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); 

American Contracting Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board 

(Hurley), 789 A.2d 391, 396 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). Thus, we have repeatedly held that 

the fact that a medical expert does not have all of a claimant's medical records goes to 

the weight given the expert's testimony, not its competency. DeGraw, 926 A.2d at 

1001; Huddy v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Air) ̧ 905 A.2d 589, 593 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); Marriott Corporation v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board 

(Knechtel), 837 A.2d 623, 631 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). 

Although Employer contends that Dr. Duffy’s testimony mirrors the 

expert testimony rejected by the court in Chik-Fil-A v. Workers’ Compensation 

Appeal Board (Mollick), 792 A.2d 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), the comparison is inapt. 

In Chik-Fil-A, the claimant sought compensation for a 1997 back injury. The 

claimant acknowledged that she injured her back in 1995 but denied any other prior 

injuries. On cross-examination, the claimant conceded that she had been treating 

with chiropractors for neck and back problems since 1987. The claimant's medical 

witness based his opinion entirely on the incomplete history provided by the 

claimant. Further, the doctor testified that if the claimant's medical history was not 

complete and accurate, his opinion would be incorrect. This Court determined that 

the testimony of the claimant's doctor was incompetent as to causation. In sharp 

contrast to the facts in Chik-Fil-A, Claimant’s medical expert was not unaware of any 

injuries or symptoms prior to the work injury at issue, and he did not base his
13

opinions on an inaccurate medical history given by Claimant. Accordingly, we reject 

Employer's assertion that Dr. Duffy’s testimony was not competent to support the 

WCJ’s findings.

Employer also argues that the WCJ failed to issue a reasoned decision as 

required by section 422(a) of the Act. More specifically, Employer asserts that the 

WCJ failed to discuss the parties’ respective burdens of proof and failed to 

adequately explain why he rejected Employer’s evidence. Section 422(a) of the Act 

states that 

[a]ll 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 workers’ compensation 

judge shall specify the evidence upon which the workers’ 

compensation judge relies and state the reasons for 

accepting it in conformity with this section. When faced 

with conflicting evidence, the workers’ compensation judge 

must adequately explain the reasons for rejecting or 

discrediting competent evidence. . . . The adjudication 

shall provide the basis for meaningful appellate review.

77 P.S. §834. 

“[A] decision is ‘reasoned’ for purposes of Section 422(a) if it allows for 

adequate review by the [Board] without further elucidation and if it allows for 

adequate review by the appellate courts under applicable review standards. A 

reasoned decision is no more, and no less.” Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation 

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

Contrary to Employer’s assertions, the WCJ’s decision fully satisfies the 

statutory reasoned decision requirements. The WCJ clearly and concisely identified 

the evidence upon which he relied and stated his reasons for rejecting conflicting 
14

competent evidence. The WCJ explained that he accepted Dr. Duffy’s testimony “as 

competent, credible, logical, internally consistent, and persuasive,” noting that it was 

supported by Dr. Duffy’s findings on physical examination, his review of Claimant’s 

medical records, and Claimant’s credible testimony. (WCJ’s Finding of Fact No. 47.)

The WCJ specifically noted that Claimant was not a good historian regarding dates 

and time periods and explained that he credited Claimant’s testimony based upon his 

personal observation of Claimant’s demeanor at multiple hearings. In sum, the WCJ's 

explanation reflects that he considered the evidence of record and that his 

determination was not made arbitrarily or capriciously. 

In PEC Contracting Engineers v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board 

(Hutchison), 717 A.2d 1086 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), we explained: 

The requirement that the WCJ adequately explain his 

reasons for accepting or rejecting evidence protects the 

parties to a decision by ensuring that a legally erroneous 

basis for a finding will not lie undiscovered. For instance, 

if a WCJ rejects evidence based on an erroneous conclusion 

that testimony is equivocal, or that the evidence is hearsay 

or for some other reason incompetent, such legal error will 

be evident and can be corrected on appeal.

However, the WCJ's prerogative to determine the credibility 

of witnesses and the weight to be accorded evidence has not 

been diminished by the amendments to Section 422(a). 

Such determinations are binding on appeal unless made 

arbitrarily and capriciously. Ryan v. Workers' 

Compensation Appeal Bd. (Community Health Servs.), [707 

A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1998)]. 

PEC, 717 A.2d at 1088-90. 

Here, the WCJ’s findings are supported by the record and reflect no legal 

error. As the WCJ's credibility determinations were not made arbitrarily and 

capriciously and as his findings are supported by substantial evidence, the WCJ's 
15

decision cannot be disturbed on appeal. PEC; Ryan. In addition, after providing an 

adequate explanation of his reasons for accepting and rejecting evidence, the WCJ 

properly applied the relevant law to the facts of the case, as articulated in his 

Conclusions of Law Nos. 2-6. Finally we note that the WCJ’s Conclusions of Law 

correctly set forth the parties’ burdens of proof, and we are perplexed by Employer’s 

contrary interpretation. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Amazon.com, :

Petitioner :

: No. 1828 C.D. 2014

v. :

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Davidson), :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 5

th day of August, 2015, the September 10, 2014 

order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is affirmed.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge