IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michele Chase, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Trustees of the University :

of Pennsylvania), : No. 1414 C.D. 2018

Respondent : Submitted: June 21, 2019

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge 

HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: August 14, 2019

Michele Chase (Claimant) petitions, pro se, for review of the 

September 20, 2018 order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) 

affirming the decision and order of Workers’ Compensation Judge Bonnie Callahan

(WCJ) granting, in part, Claimant’s Claim Petition for Compensation Benefits 

(Claim Petition) filed against the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania 

(Employer) pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act),

1

and granting the 

Petition to Terminate Compensation Benefits (Termination Petition) filed by 

Employer against Claimant pursuant to the Act. We affirm.

 

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

On November 13, 2014, while working as a nursing assistant for 

Employer, Claimant suffered an injury to her neck and right shoulder when a patient 

fell into her arms. WCJ Decision dated September 20, 2017, Certified Record Item 

No. 9 (WCJ Decision), Findings of Fact (F.F.) 2(a). Claimant reported the incident 

to her superiors and filled out an injury report. Id. She received treatment for her 

injuries at an emergency room. Id. Four days later, on November 17, 2014, she was 

treated at Employee Health and released back to work without restrictions. Id. She

returned to her pre-injury job at that time. Id.

Nearly a year later, on October 12, 2015, while lifting and carrying a 

chair at work, Claimant again felt pain in the same area of her neck and shoulder 

previously affected by the November 2014 work-related injury. F.F. 2(a)-(b). 

Claimant reported the October 12, 2015 incident to her supervisor and filled out an 

incident report. F.F. 2(a). Claimant reported to Employee Health and was taken out 

of work. Id. On October 28, 2015, Claimant was released to return to work with 

restrictions, but no light-duty positions were available with Employer at that time. 

F.F. 2(b). On December 4, 2015, Claimant was released to return to work without 

restrictions, and she returned to her pre-injury job at her pre-injury wages at that 

time. F.F. 2(a). 

Claimant continued to work at her pre-injury job with Employer until 

November 4, 2016, when she was taken out of work by Norman Stempler, D.O., 

whom she saw for the first time on that day. F.F. 2(c)-(d). Claimant had not 

complained to anyone at work of increased pain prior to leaving work on the order 

of Dr. Stempler. F.F. 2(c). 

On November 16, 2015, Claimant filed the Claim Petition seeking 

partial disability benefits for an alleged work-related injury described as “[c]ervical 
3

radicul[o]pathy, neck, right shoulder pa[i]n along with pain i[n] the right arm,” 

which Claimant related to the November 13, 2014 incident. See Claim Petition. 

Employer timely filed an answer denying all material and relevant allegations of the 

Claim Petition. See Answer to Claim Petition, Certified Record Item No. 4.

On August 17, 2016, Claimant underwent an Independent Medical 

Evaluation (IME) conducted by Todd Kelman, D.O., who opined that Claimant 

suffered a work-related injury on November 13, 2014, from which she had fully 

recovered. See F.F. 4(a)-(c). Based on Dr. Kelman’s findings, on February 14, 2017, 

Employer filed the Termination Petition alleging Claimant had fully recovered from 

her November 13, 2014 work-related injury as of August 17, 2016, the date of the 

IME. See F.F. 1; Board Opinion at 1.2 

After consolidating the petitions and conducting hearings on the matter, 

the WCJ decided the Claim and Termination Petitions by decision issued on 

September 20, 2017. See WCJ Decision. In the WCJ Decision, the WCJ found: (1) 

Claimant met her burden of proving that she sustained a work-related injury on 

November 13, 2014, which resulted in a closed period of disability from October 12, 

2015 through December 4, 2015; (2) Claimant did not meet her burden of proving 

that her disability continued beyond August 17, 2016; and (3) Employer met its 

burden of proving that Claimant had fully recovered from the work-related injury as 

of August 17, 2016. See WCJ Decision at 8; Board Opinion at 1. Accordingly, the 

 

2 The WCJ also determined Employer was not responsible for the payment of Claimant’s 

litigation fees. WCJ Decision at 9. Specifically, the WCJ determined that, because she found Dr. 

Stempler’s testimony to be not credible in its entirety, Claimant was not entitled to reimbursement 

of Dr. Stempler-related costs and fees. Id. On appeal, however, the Board determined that, 

because Employer had forced Claimant to proceed with litigation in which Claimant was partially 

successful, the WCJ erred in denying Claimant her requested litigation fees. See Board Opinion 

at 4-8. Thus, the Board modified the WCJ Decision to include payment of those costs. See Board 

Opinion at 4-8. Id. No party challenges this determination on appeal to this Court.
4

WCJ: (1) granted the Claim Petition, in part, awarding Claimant temporary total 

disability benefits for the closed period of October 12, 2015 to December 4, 2015; 

(2) suspended Claimant’s benefits as of December 4, 2015; and (3) granted the 

Termination Petition, terminating Claimant’s benefits as of August 17, 2016. See

WCJ Decision at 9; Board Opinion at 1. Claimant appealed the WCJ’s ruling that 

she had fully recovered from her work injury, and the Board affirmed by opinion 

dated September 20, 2018. See On-line Appeal, Certified Record Item No. 10; see 

also generally Board Opinion. Claimant timely petitioned this Court for review.3

To the extent Claimant’s brief contains discernable arguments,4

Claimant contends that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ’s determination that 

 

3

In workers’ compensation appeals, this Court’s “scope of review is limited to determining 

whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law was committed and 

whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Morocho v. Workers’ 

Comp. Appeal Bd. (Home Equity Renovations, Inc.), 167 A.3d 855, 858 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) 

(citing Johnson v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dubois Courier Express), 631 A.2d 693 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1993)).

Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence a reasonable person might 

find sufficient to support the WCJ’s findings. In determining whether a finding of 

fact is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must consider the evidence as 

a whole, view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed 

before the WCJ, and draw all reasonable inferences which are deducible from the 

evidence in favor of the prevailing party.

Frog, Switch & Mfg. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Johnson), 106 A.3d 202, 206 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

4 Claimant’s Statement of Questions Involved includes nine (9) purported claims listed, 

verbatim, as follows:

1. It is known that the Claimant went out of work, on November 13, 

2014 and October 12, 2015 due to her work injury. However, 

according to the opinion of Wilderman Commissioner of the 

Workman’s Compensation Appeal Board, what did the claimant 

testify regarding when and why she came out of work due to her 

injuries? (Workman’s Comp Appeal Board Opinion, pg. 3 of 8).
5

 

“.On November 13, 2014, a patient she was helping with fell into 

her and she injured her neck and shoulder. She reported her injury 

but continued working until October 12, 2015, when she felt more 

pain in her shoulder and was taken off work by the Defendant’s 

doctor.”

2. Although, the judge found I the Claimant’s testimony creditable 

in part, there are missing facts. Therefore, accordingly to testimony 

did the claimant miss any time off due to the injury on November 

13, 2014? Claimant’s summarized testimony (Finding of facts pg. 

3 of 9) and (Findings of Facts pg. 6 of 9 paragraph 4)

3. Over time an injury left undiagnosed can easily be Triggered. 

When did the claimant state that she had pain, with the second work 

incident? And what was the pain level and affected area stated in 

here testimony, that is consistent with her first injury date?

The Court order summarized claimant’s testimony as follows “As 

on May 31, 2017 she had increased pain in her right shoulder, right 

hand and fingers. She had pain in her left shoulder, neck, right neck, 

pain down her right leg, and pain in her mid-back section. She was 

not capable of performing her pre-injury job. She did not feel fully 

recovered when she saw Dr. Kelman in August 2016. She estimated 

the chair she lifted in October 2015 weighted maybe (20) pounds. 

She was able to perform some activities of daily living. She 

continued to treat with Dr. Stempler and take pain medication” 

(Findings of Facts, pg. 4 of 9, paragraph 1).

4. If there were no MRI testing done before November 13, 2014, we 

should not assume there was an injury already present. Especially 

since the claimant was being seen by her own pain specialist, with 

in the Defendants Health Care system. Therefore, what were the 

October 17, 2015 MRI results in Dr. Normans Stemplers testimony?

“He reviewed an MRI of the cervical spine that revealed multi-level 

degenerative disc diseases with disc protrusion” (Finding of fact pg. 

4 of 9) And are these results consistent with working, over a period 

with these types of injuries? If so, what should be done according

to Dr. Stemplers testimony? “He recommended taking claimant out 

of work and minimizing her physical activity. He opined there was 

a direct casual relationship between Claimant’s ongoing continued 

complaints and the events related.” (Findings of facts pg. 4 of 9)
6

 

5. What were the finding of the MRI results Claimants filed petition 

of review? (Claimant filled petition – pg. 2 of 4 continued) (RR pg. 

16). Also, it is a fact that the claimant is right hand dominate, 

however she does not have the strength nor the grip she once had. 

Consequently, what are some of the findings in Dr. Kelman’s 

deposition testimony upon examination of the claimant? (Finding of 

facts pg. 5 of 9 section- b) and (Findings of facts 6 of 9 section -d)

6. The Claimant was being seen for an unrelated medical matter. 

Has the claimant even acknowledged treatment for any injuries 

unrelated to the November 13, 2014 injury or the October 12, 2015 

injury? And did she try to treat with her Dr. for the work injury that 

originated on November 13, 2015?

“She had lower back problems, unrelated to her work injury, prior 

to November of 2014” Claimant testimony (Findings of facts pg. 3 

of 9-(b)

7. Since the claimant was out of work October 12, 2015 through 

December 4, 2015 on Short-term disability, knowing she had a work 

injury, no MRI was done by the Defendant before she returned to 

work, as required to be sure the claimant was completely healed. 

(Especially after reading her October MRI results) So, what were 

the findings during Dr. Kelman’s office examination on August 17, 

2016? (Findings of Facts, pgs. 5 and of 9 section 4b).

8. Although the MRI results does not reflect a cervical/trapezial 

strain/sprain; Was the defendant held liable/agree in any capacity of 

the claimant’s injury during November 13, 2014 or during the closed 

period she was out of work from October 12, 2015 to December 4, 

2015? In addition, was any payment granted? (Worker’s 

Compensation Judge Bonnie Callahan, (Findings of Fact Order pg. 

9 of 9).

“The party agree that Claimant sustained a work- related injury on 

November 13, 2014 in the form of a cervical strain as set forth in 

Dr. Kelman’s August 17, 2016 IME Report” (Stipulation of Facts 

pg. 2- Description of Injury) In addition did the employer ever 

accept than deny responsibility of the claimants injury? (Opinion 

pg. 5 and 6 of 8)

9. Between the November 13, 2014 injury and her second injury in 

October 2015, over that time leading up to her having to stop 
7

substantial evidence existed to grant the Termination Petition. See Claimant’s Brief 

at 19-22. Claimant is not entitled to relief.

As this Court has explained:

In a termination proceeding, the employer bears the 

burden of proving that a work-related disability has 

ceased. This burden can be met by presenting unequivocal 

and competent medical evidence of a claimant’s full 

recovery from a work-related injury.[5] A determination of 

whether medical testimony is equivocal is a conclusion of 

law fully reviewable by this Court. Credibility of 

witnesses, however, is for the [WCJ] to evaluate and he or 

she may accept the testimony of one witness over that of 

another.

Koszowski v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Greyhound Lines, Inc.), 595 A.2d 697, 

699 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (internal citations omitted).

Here, Claimant testified before the WCJ on April 6, 2016 and May 31, 

2017. See F.F. 2; see also Notes of Testimony, April 6, 2016, Certified Record Item 

No. 15 & Notes of Testimony, May 31, 2017, Certified Record Item No. 19. 

Claimant testified that on November 13, 2014, she was employed by Employer as a 

certified nursing assistant. See F.F. 2(a). On that date, Claimant explained, she was 

injured when a patient fell into her arms, injuring her neck and right shoulder. Id. 

Claimant reported the injury to her supervisor and filled out an appropriate injury 

report. Id. Claimant testified that she treated at an emergency room for her injuries 

 

working on November 4, 2016 how was the Claimant feeling with 

her pain? (Summarized – Finding of facts pg. 3 of 9 section c )

Claimant’s Brief at 6-14 (verbatim).

5

“Medical evidence is considered unequivocal if the medical expert, after providing a 

foundation, testifies that in his medical opinion, he thinks the facts exist.” Craftsmen v. Workers’ 

Comp. Appeal Bd. (Krouchick), 809 A.2d 434, 439 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
8

and then reported on November 17, 2014 to Employee Health, at which point she 

was released to return to work without restrictions. Id. Accordingly, Claimant 

testified she returned to her pre-injury job on November 17, 2014. Id. 

Claimant further testified that, between November 17, 2014 and 

October 12, 2015, she received no treatment for her neck and shoulder injury. See

F.F. 2(b). She explained that, between those dates, her symptoms would come and 

go, but were not severe. See F.F. 2(a). 

Claimant additionally testified that, while at work on October 12, 2015, 

she lifted a chair6 and felt a pulling sensation in the same location of her shoulder 

and neck that had been previously affected by the November 2014 work injury. F.F. 

2(a)-(b). As before, Claimant reported the incident to her supervisor and filled out 

an appropriate incident report. F.F. 2(a)-(b). She reported to Employee Health, 

where she was taken out of work and referred for diagnostic testing. F.F. 2(a)-(b). 

Claimant explained that she was released to return to work with restrictions as of 

October 28, 2015, but did not return at that time because Employer had no light-duty 

positions available. F.F. 2(a)-(b). Claimant explained that she returned to work in 

her pre-injury job at her pre-injury wages on December 4, 2015. F.F. 2(b) & (d).

Claimant testified that, over time following her December 4, 2015 

return to work, her symptoms continued and increased such that she had pain in her 

neck, back, and shoulders on both her right and left sides and that the pain also went 

down her right leg. F.F. 2(c). Claimant explained that she continued to work fulltime until November 4, 2016, when her pain became so severe that she could no 

longer work. F.F. 2(c). Claimant conceded she had told no one at work about her 

pain or about how she was feeling. F.F. 2(c). She saw Dr. Stempler for the first 

 

6 Claimant approximated the weight of the chair to be around 20 pounds. See F.F. 2(c).
9

time on November 4, 2016, and he removed her from work on that date. F.F. 2(d). 

Claimant testified that by May 31, 2017, she was no longer capable of performing 

her pre-injury job due to increased pain in her right shoulder, neck, right hand and 

fingers, right leg, and additional pain in her left shoulder and mid-back. F.F. 2(c). 

Claimant explained that she did not feel fully recovered at the time of her IME and 

continues to suffer from constant pain. F.F. 2(c)-(d).

Claimant also presented Dr. Stempler’s deposition testimony. F.F. 3. 

Dr. Stempler, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that he examined Claimant for the first 

time on November 4, 2016, at which time she presented with multiple claims of 

neck, back, and upper right extremity pain. F.F. 3(a). Dr. Stempler testified that he 

took a medical history from Claimant in which she related the onset of her injuries 

to the November 13, 2014 work incident and discussed the exacerbation of her 

symptoms on October 12, 2015. F.F. 3(a). Dr. Stempler testified he reviewed an 

MRI of Claimant’s cervical spine that revealed multi-level degenerative disc disease 

with disc protrusion and an MRI of Claimant’s lumbar spine that likewise showed 

positive findings, although Claimant had no lumbar complaints at the time. F.F. 

3(a). Dr. Stempler explained he ordered a third MRI, of the thoracic spine this time, 

which also revealed evidence of multi-level degenerative disc disease and other 

abnormalities. F.F. 3(a).

Dr. Stempler testified that he examined Claimant and arrived at an 

initial impression of chronic, ongoing aggravated cervical and thoracic 

musculoligamentous injury with myofascitis, myofascial syndrome, aggravated 

degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with right upper extremity cervical 

radiculopathy, and aggravated degenerative disc disease of the thoracic spine. F.F. 

3(b). Dr. Stempler took Claimant off of work and recommended that she minimize 
10

her physical activity. F.F. 3(b). Dr. Stempler further testified that a direct causal 

relationship existed between Claimant’s work incidents and her ongoing continued 

complaints. F.F. 3(b). 

Dr. Stempler testified he saw Claimant again on December 2, 2016 and 

February 1, 2017, and that she remained symptomatic at the later visits. F.F. 3(b). 

Dr. Stempler ultimately diagnosed Claimant with chronic, ongoing aggravated 

degenerative disc disease of the cervical and thoracic spine, right cervical 

radiculopathy and ongoing associated musculoligamentous injury of the 

cervical/thoracic spine. F.F. 3(b). Dr. Stempler testified that Claimant remains 

disabled from her previous work as a result of this condition. F.F. 3(b). 

In support of the Termination Petition, Employer presented the 

deposition testimony of Todd Kelman, D.O. F.F. 4. Dr. Kelman, a board-certified

orthopedic surgeon, examined Claimant on August 17, 2016. F.F. 4(a). Dr. Kelman 

testified that Claimant reported that she was working without restrictions at the time 

of the examination. F.F. 4(a). Dr. Kelman explained that Claimant complained of 

right-sided neck and shoulder pain, but did not have left-sided pain. F.F. 4(a). Dr. 

Kelman testified Claimant reported to him the November 2014 and October 2015 

work incidents. F.F. 4(a). He reviewed her medical records and noted that the 

cervical spine MRI showed bilateral degenerative changes at multiple levels, but no 

evidence of any frank disc herniation. F.F. 4(a). Dr. Kelman testified that his 

physical examination of Claimant revealed no midline percussion tenderness in 

either the cervical or thoracic spine. F.F. 4(b). Claimant displayed a full range of 

rotation despite subjective complaints of discomfort in the back of the shoulder. F.F. 

4(b). Dr. Kelman opined that Claimant had sustained a cervical and trapezial strain 

and sprain and had dysesthesias in her right hand of an unknown ideology. F.F. 4(c). 
11

He explained that Claimant’s 2015 EMG had been normal, her provocative tests 

were negative for carpal tunnel or ulnar nerve problems, and her reflexes were intact. 

F.F. 4(c). He found no anatomical explanation for her related dysesthesias. F.F. 

4(c). Ultimately, Dr. Kelman opined that Claimant was fully recovered from her 

work injury, was capable of returning to work without restrictions, and required no 

further treatment for her cervical and trapezial sprain/strain. F.F. 4(c).

Based on the evidence presented, the WCJ made the following relevant 

determinations:

5. [Claimant’s] testimony is credible that she felt pain in 

her neck and right shoulder/trapezius after she caught a 

patient on November 13, 2014; she was released to her full 

duty job on November 17, 2014, after which she continued 

to work her full duty job until October 12, 2015, when she 

felt increased symptoms after lifting a chair; she gave 

timely notice of both incidents; she was out of work from 

October 12, 2015 to December 4, 2015; she was released 

to return [to] full duty work and did so as of December 4, 

2015; and she continued to work her pre-injury job until 

she was taken out of work by Dr. Stempler on November 

4, 2016. Her testimony is not credible that she continued 

to have ongoing disability related to the work injury as of 

November 4, 2016 such that she needed to stop working. 

Her testimony is not credible that as of November 4, 2016, 

she was no longer capable of performing her pre-injury 

job. Her testimony is not credible that she sustained 

injuries other than a cervical and trapezial strain and sprain 

as a result of either the 11/13/14 or 10/12/15 incidents. In 

so finding, this Judge finds it significant that, following 

the initial incident, Claimant was released to return to her 

full duty job three days afterwards and she continued to 

work her full duty job for almost a year until the incident 

of October 12, 2015. This Judge finds it significant that 

following the October 12, 2015 incident, Claimant was 

released to return to her full duty job and did so on 
12

December 4, 2015. This Judge finds it significant that 

Claimant continued to work her pre-injury job without 

restrictions for almost a year until she saw Dr. Stempler on 

November 4, 2016, to whom she was referred by her 

attorney. This Judge finds it significant that Claimant 

received very little medical treatment other than treating at 

Employee Health on a few occasions until she began 

treating with Dr. Stempler on November 4, 2016.

6. The testimony of Dr. Stempler is not credible. His 

testimony is not credible that Claimant was not capable of 

performing her pre-injury job on November 4, 2016 and 

thereafter. His testimony is not credible regarding the 

diagnoses Claimant sustained as a result of the November 

13, 2014 incident and the October 12, 2015 incident. This 

Judge finds it significant that Claimant was performing her 

full duty job until she first saw Dr. Stempler on November 

4, 2016. Dr. Stempler had no information regarding the 

October 12, 2015 incident and thought Claimant was 

performing patient care at that time. He agreed the MRIs 

showed significant degenerative findings in the cervical 

and thoracic spine that were chronic and pre-existed the 

November 2014 incident. He was of the opinion [that] 

Claimant was working modified duty when he first saw 

her on November 4, 2016, which is contrary to Claimant’s 

testimony.

7. The testimony of Dr. Kelman is credible. His testimony 

is credible that Claimant sustained a cervical and trapezial 

strain and sprain as a result of the November 13, 2014 

work incident from which she had fully recovered as of 

August 17, 2016. His testimony is credible that Claimant 

did not sustain any additional injuries as a result of either 

the November 13, 2014 or October 12, 2015 incidents. 

The testimony of Dr. Kelman is accepted over the 

testimony of Dr. Stempler to the extent their testimonies 

conflict. The testimony of Dr. Kelman is more consistent 

with Claimant’s work history and the diagnostic study 

results than is the testimony of Dr. Stempler.
13

F.F. 5-7. Of course, the WCJ determines witness credibility and the weight of 

evidence, and neither the Board nor this Court may overturn those determinations 

on appeal. Koszowski; see also Hawbaker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kriner’s 

Quality Roofing Servs. & Uninsured Employer Guar. Fund), 159 A.3d 61, 69 (Pa. 

Cmwlth.), reargument denied (Apr. 3), appeal denied, 173 A.3d 252 (Pa. 2017) 

(“Neither the Board nor this Court may reweigh the evidence or the WCJ’s 

credibility determinations.”).

As a result of the WCJ’s credibility determinations, which we must 

accept, as did the Board,7 we find that substantial record evidence supports the 

WCJ’s findings of fact. Specifically, Dr. Kelman’s credible testimony supports the 

WCJ’s finding that Claimant had fully recovered from her November 13, 2014 workrelated injury as of August 17, 2016. Therefore, the WCJ properly terminated 

Claimant’s compensation benefits from August 17, 2016 onward. See WCJ 

Decision at 8 & Order. Claimant’s assertions of error represent nothing more than 

a challenge to the WCJ’s credibility determinations and an attempt to argue her 

preferred version of the facts. The Board did not err in affirming the WCJ’s 

Decision.

Accordingly, the Board’s order is affirmed.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

 

7

See Board Opinion at 3.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michele Chase, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Trustees of the University :

of Pennsylvania), : No. 1414 C.D. 2018

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2019, the September 20, 2018

order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge