IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Reed Shaffer Construction and :

Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, :

Petitioners :

:

v. :

:

Glynn Smith (Workers’ Compensation :

Appeal Board), : No. 1003 C.D. 2021

Respondent : Submitted: March 4, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: July 6, 2022

Reed Shaffer Construction and Donegal Mutual Insurance Company 

(collectively, Employer) petition this Court for review of the Workers’

Compensation (WC) Appeal Board’s (Board) August 23, 2021 order affirming the 

WC Judge’s (WCJ) April 7, 2020 decision that denied Employer’s Petition to 

Suspend Compensation Benefits (Suspension Petition).1 The sole issue before this 

Court is whether the WCJ erred by denying the Suspension Petition despite the 

evidence that Glynn Smith (Claimant) sustained a 50% loss of use of three right hand

fingers without any disability separate and apart from those three injured fingers. 

After review, this Court affirms.

1 Section 413 of the Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736 (Act), as amended, 77 P.S. § 772,

authorizes a WCJ to suspend WC benefits upon proof that an injured employee’s disability has 

temporarily or finally ceased.
2

On March 28, 2018, Claimant sustained lacerations to his right middle, 

ring, and small fingers during the course and scope of his employment with 

Employer as a full-time carpenter.

2

 On April 5, 2018, Employer issued a Notice of 

Temporary Compensation Payable (NTCP) acknowledging the March 28, 2018 

injury as “[l]aceration [[c]ut, scratches, abrasions, superficial wounds, calluses, 

wound by tearing],” and began paying Claimant wage loss benefits at a weekly rate 

of $512.50. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 72a; see also R.R. at 73a. Thereafter, the 

NTCP converted to a Notice of Compensation Payable.

On March 5, 2019, Employer filed the Suspension Petition, therein 

alleging that, since Claimant suffered specific loss of use of only 50% of his right 

third, fourth, and fifth fingers, without any injuries or disabilities separate and apart 

from those three injured digits, Employer was only responsible for paying 58 weeks 

of specific loss benefits through May 10, 2019. See R.R. at 4a. Employer also 

requested a supersedeas. See R.R. at 5a. 

The WCJ conducted hearings on April 23 and October 29, 2019. Based 

on evidence presented at the April 23, 2019 hearing, by April 29, 2019 Interlocutory 

Order, the WCJ denied Employer’s supersedeas request.

3

 See R.R. at 8a-10a. On 

April 7, 2020, the WCJ denied Employer’s Suspension Petition because Employer 

failed to sustain its burden of proving that Claimant suffered a specific loss limited 

to only 50% use of his third, fourth, and fifth digits of his right hand, without injuries

2 Claimant had been a carpenter for over 30 years. See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 22a. 

As of March 28, 2018, he had worked for Employer doing residential and commercial carpentry 

for a little over one year. See id. On that date, while cutting a two-by-four with a table saw, the 

board “kicked back towards [him] and [his] hand kind of just followed the lumber through the saw 

blade.” R.R. at 24a. Claimant is left-handed. See R.R. at 23a.

3 On May 7, 2019, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order, stating: “After review and 

consideration of the subject matter which is reviewed in correspondence from counsel for 

[Employer] dated April 29, 2019, the denial of the supersedeas request in the context of the pending 

Suspension Petition, as reflected in the Interlocutory Order circulated April 29, 2019, is affirmed.” 

R.R. at 13a.
3

separate and apart from his specific loss. See WCJ Dec. at 26. The WCJ found that 

Claimant’s injuries also included ongoing right hand, wrist, and forearm pain that 

rendered him physically incapable of performing his pre-injury job. Employer 

appealed to the Board which affirmed the WCJ’s decision on August 23, 2021. 

Employer appealed to this Court.4

Employer has been paying Claimant total disability benefits,5 but filed 

the Suspension Petition asserting that, since Claimant’s March 28, 2018 work injury 

was limited to a specific loss of his three digits on his right hand, his WC benefits 

must cease when the amount of benefits Employer has paid equals the amount to 

which Claimant would have been entitled for that specific loss. In this appeal, 

Employer argues that the WCJ erred by denying the Suspension Petition despite 

Employer’s uncontroverted medical evidence that Claimant only sustained a 50% 

loss of use of three right fingers, without any disability separate and apart from those 

three injured fingers.

Initially, “Section 306 of the [WC] Act (Act),

[6] 77 P.S. §§ 511, 512[,]

513, recognizes three types of disability: total disability, partial disability[,] and 

permanent disability, commonly known as ‘specific loss.’”7 Est. of Harris v.

4 On September 15, 2021, Employer filed an application for supersedeas, which the Board 

denied on October 20, 2021. On October 22, 2021, Employer filed a petition for supersedeas in 

this Court that Claimant opposed. Following argument, this Court denied Employer’s petition for 

supersedeas on January 12, 2022. See January 12, 2022 Memorandum and Order. 

“Our review is limited to determining whether the WCJ’s findings of fact were supported 

by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether constitutional rights 

were violated.” Pierson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Consol Pa. Coal Co. LLC), 252 A.3d 

1169, 1172 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 261 A.3d 378 (Pa. 2021).

5 The Court observes that the NTCP does not reference a specific loss, see R.R. at 72a-73a, 

and there does not appear to have been a prior ruling that Claimant sustained a specific loss of use 

of his right third, fourth, and fifth fingers. 

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

7

“[T]he term ‘disability’ is a term of art in the [WC] context. Generally, ‘disability’ is 

synonymous with loss of earning power resulting from a work-related injury.” Whitfield v. 
4

Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sunoco, Inc. & ESIS/SIGNA), 845 A.2d 239, 241 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2004) (footnotes omitted). “‘Specific loss’ does not appear in the Act; it is 

the term popularly used to describe the disability payments to be made where a 

claimant has suffered a permanent injury.” Id. at 242 n.6. “A specific loss is either 

(1) the loss of a body part by amputation or (2) the permanent loss of use of an 

injured body part for all practical intents and purposes.”8 Miller v. Workers’ Comp.

Appeal Bd. (Wal-Mart), 44 A.3d 726, 728 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (quoting Jacobi v.

Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wawa, Inc.), 942 A.2d 263, 264 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2008)). 

Section 306(c) of the Act provides a schedule to compensate injured 

employees for specific losses. See 77 P.S. § 513. Because “specific loss benefits 

are recognized as compensation ‘for the loss of use of designated bodily members 

rather than for general loss of earning power,’ Turner v. Jones & Laughlin Steel

Corp[.], . . . 389 A.2d 42, 43 ([Pa.] 1978) (emphasis in original),” they “are payable 

without regard to whether the permanent injury has actually caused a wage loss.” 

Allegheny Power Serv. Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cockroft), 954 A.2d 

692, 702 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 

Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tenet Health Sys. Hahnemann LLC), 188 A.3d 599, 612 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2018).

8 A specific loss requires more than just limitations upon an injured 

worker’s occupational activities; a loss of use for all practical intents 

and purposes requires a more crippling injury than one that results 

in a loss of use for occupational purposes. However, it is not 

necessary that the injured body part be one hundred percent useless 

in order for the loss of use to qualify as being for all practical intents 

and purposes. 

Miller v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wal-Mart), 44 A.3d 726, 728 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (quoting

Jacobi v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wawa, Inc.), 942 A.2d 263, 267-68 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008)). 

Evidence necessary to prove that a loss is permanent for all intents and purposes “hinges on the 

findings of fact in each case, including those regarding credibility, the degree of the injury, and 

the degree to which a claimant may continue to use the body part.” Kemps v. Steets (Workers’

Comp. Appeal Bd.), 257 A.3d 1271, 1278 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021).
5

Moreover, 

[i]t is well established that in matters involving specific

loss claims, a claimant who sustains an injury that is 

compensable under Section 306(c) of the Act . . . (relative 

to specific loss calculations), is not [also] entitled to 

compensation beyond that specified in that section[,] even 

though he may be totally disabled by the injury.

Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Easterling), 113 A.3d 

909, 914 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (quoting Sharon Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal 

Bd. (Frantz), 790 A.2d 1084, 1088 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)). This is because “[i]njuries, 

including those that result in a loss of earning power, that normally flow from the 

specific loss injuries are considered compensated under specific loss benefits.” 

Lindemuth v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Strishock Coal Co.), 134 A.3d 111, 121 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

However, “[a]n exception to the general rule provides that a claimant 

may also receive benefits for injuries that are separate and distinct from those that 

flow from the specific loss injury.” Kemps v. Steets (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 

257 A.3d 1271, 1277 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). Thus, “if a claimant suffers an injury that 

is separate and apart from a specific loss of a body part that results in a loss of earning 

power, a claimant may receive compensation under Section 306(a) of the Act, 77 

P.S. § 511[] (related to total disability), or Section 306(b) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 512[]

(related to partial disability), in addition to benefits for the specific loss of a body 

part.” Lindemuth, 134 A.3d at 121.

Here, Employer presented the deposition testimony of orthopedic 

surgeon Steven E. Kann, M.D. (Dr. Kann) in support of its Suspension Petition. Dr. 

Kann conducted an independent medical evaluation (IME) of Claimant on January 
6

9, 2019. Dr. Kann testified that he reviewed Claimant’s medical records,9 obtained 

Claimant’s history, took right hand X-rays, and physically examined Claimant. See

R.R. at 173a-175a, 202a-206a. Dr. Kann recalled Claimant confirming at the IME 

that his work injury was limited to the third, fourth, and fifth digits of his right hand, 

and complaining of stiffness and decreased range of motion in those fingers, but 

Claimant did not report any complaints about his right hand or wrist. See R.R. at 

173a-174a, 187a. 

During his examination, Dr. Kann observed that Claimant had limited 

range of motion in the third, fourth, and fifth fingers of his right hand, full range of 

motion in his right thumb and index finger, and normal nerve function of all five 

digits. See R.R. at 175a, 184a-185a. Claimant’s X-rays confirmed healed fractures 

and diffuse preexisting arthritis in Claimant’s right hand, and Dr. Kann determined 

that Claimant’s grip was 60 pounds in his right hand (as opposed to 120 pounds in 

his left hand).10 See R.R. at 175a-176a, 185a-187a. Dr. Kann confirmed that 

Claimant has “arthrofibrosis, which means stiffness of the joints, and adhesions of 

the extensor tendons” due to his March 28, 2018 work injury, which has “resulted in 

permanent stiffness of digits 3, 4[,] and 5 of the right hand.” R.R. at 176a; see also

R.R. at 182a, 188a, 204a. Dr. Kann opined that Claimant could frequently lift/carry

up to 25 pounds (and occasionally up to 50 pounds) with both hands, Claimant is 

able to “rarely” climb ladders, R.R. at 206a, Claimant “could not lift greater than 15

pounds with [his] right hand[, and his] right hand could be used for grasping of large 

objects, but he would not be able to manipulate small objects with the right hand.” 

9 Dr. Kann subsequently reviewed Rafael Diaz-Garcia, M.D.’s January 7, 2019 report, and 

Stephen J. Thomas, M.D.’s April 10, 2019 report, that were not available to Dr. Kann at the IME. 

See R.R. at 207a-208a. He declared that neither report altered his conclusion. See R.R. at 180a181a, 207a-208a.

10 Dr. Kann explained that a person’s non-dominant hand (here, the right) will typically 

have 80% of the strength of the dominant hand (here, the left). See R.R. at 176a. 
7

R.R. at 177a; see also R.R. at 178a, 182a, 206a. Dr. Kann stated that further 

treatment will not change Claimant’s condition because his right hand condition will 

never resolve. See R.R. at 182a, 188a-189a. Notwithstanding, Dr. Kann concluded 

that Claimant “is capable of working 40 hours a week plus overtime in a modified[-

]duty capacity utilizing [his] right hand as a helper hand.” R.R. at 161a.

Dr. Kann testified that patients who suffer the types of injuries Claimant 

did typically experience resulting stiffness. See R.R. at 174a. He declared in his 

IME report: “It is my opinion that [Claimant’s] injury was isolated to the [third], 

[fourth], and [fifth] digit[s,] and there is no injury separate and apart, thus there is 

no injury to the right wrist or the remainder of the hand that would be attributable to 

the isolated table saw injury to digits 3, 4 and 5.” R.R. at 206a. By February 12, 

2019 letter in response to Employer’s inquiry “[w]hether or not [Claimant] had 

suffered a specific loss of use either 100% or 50% of digits 3, 4 and 5, and whether 

there was any injury separate and apart in regard to the right hand[,]” Dr. Kann 

confirmed, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty: 

Given the fact that [Claimant] was able to achieve 60 

pounds of grip strength in the right hand and that digits 3, 

4[,] and 5 were neurovascularly intact with normal

sensation and normal canillary refill, but [Claimant] had a 

profound deficit in active and passive range of motion of 

digits 3, 4[,] and 5, it is my opinion that [Claimant] has 

lost 50% use of digits 3, 4[,] and 5 of the right hand and

this 50% loss of use is permanent. In addition, it is my 

opinion there is no injury separate and apart.

R.R. at 207a. Dr. Kann reiterated that opinion in his deposition. See R.R. at 178a180a.

Claimant testified that, after he was injured on March 28, 2018, he was 

transported to the Jameson Hospital emergency room where he was told to go to 

Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, where Rafael Diaz-Garcia, M.D. (Dr. 
8

Diaz-Garcia) conducted extensive repair surgery, including inserting hardware in his 

middle and ring fingers, the next day. See R.R. at 25a-26a, 74a-94a. Claimant 

described that he underwent physical therapy thereafter. See R.R. at 26a-27a, 41a42a. He recalled that Dr. Diaz-Garcia removed the hardware on April 30, 2018, but,

due to significant tightening and stiffening in his hands, Dr. Diaz-Garcia performed 

a second surgical procedure on August 3, 2018, after which Claimant again 

underwent intensive physical therapy until October or November 2018. See R.R. at

27a-28a, 36a, 40a-43a, 75a, 78a-80a. On January 7, 2019, Dr. Diaz-Garcia 

discharged Claimant from his care with a right hand 20-pound lifting restriction, 

reporting: “It is unsafe for [Claimant] to climb a ladder. He cannot return to the 

previous company he was working for.” R.R. at 85a; see also R.R. at 28a-29a, 37a, 

43a-44a. 

Claimant explained that his counsel referred him to orthopedic surgeon 

Stephen J. Thomas, M.D. (Dr. Thomas), who examined Claimant on April 10, May 

1, and June 26, 2019. See R.R. at 36a-37a, 68a, 95a-100a, 140a-141a. Claimant 

further recalled Dr. Thomas referring him to Orientee Ditano, M.D. (Dr. Ditano), 

who specializes in complex hand surgery, for a second opinion. See R.R. at 112a113a. Claimant described that Dr. Ditano examined him on August 20, 2019, and 

ordered a computerized tomography (CT) scan of his right hand. See R.R. at 63a, 

68a. According to Dr. Ditano’s report, Claimant had significant stiffness in his third, 

fourth, and fifth fingers and he could not make a full fist. See R.R. at 166a. Dr. 

Ditano concluded that Claimant “is disabled[,]” and he did not believe that any 

additional surgical intervention would make Claimant’s situation better. Id. 

Claimant asserted that Dr. Ditano did not release him to return to his pre-injury job. 

See R.R. at 64a.

Claimant displayed his hand for the WCJ, who observed that 

Claimant’s small and ring fingers were in a permanently bent position and there was 
9

significant swelling in his right ring finger. See WCJ Dec. at 5; see also R.R. at 29a30a, 64a. Claimant pointed out that his laceration extends from the base of his small 

finger at his hand to the top of his middle finger. See R.R. at 67a-68a. Claimant 

demonstrated that severe stiffness and range of motion problems in all three 

damaged fingers allow him only to make a half fist, and he cannot touch his injured 

fingers to his right palm. See WCJ Dec. at 5; see also R.R. at 30a-31a, 34a, 64a-65a. 

Claimant described that he experiences occasional tingling in his injured fingers, but 

that he has “pretty severe stiffness” in those fingers that extends to the corner of his 

hand at his wrist. R.R. at 33a; see also R.R. at 34a, 64a. 

Claimant articulated that his pre-injury job consisted of all phases of 

construction, including sawing, cutting, lifting, and regularly climbing ladders. See

R.R. at 22a-23a. He also used manual and electrical tools, including saws, screw 

guns, hammers, and claws. See R.R. at 23a. In addition, Claimant had to lift, move, 

and carry various items, such as full drywall buckets, plywood, drywall, and heavier 

lumber like two-by-tens and two-by-twelves. See R.R. at 22a. Claimant pronounced 

that his injuries have rendered him unable to grasp and use a hammer, screwdriver, 

and other objects (boxes, etc.), and he can no longer safely climb a ladder. See R.R. 

at 32a, 44a-45a, 64a-65a. Claimant stated that he has not worked since March 28, 

2018. See R.R. at 34a, 62a. He represented that the condition of his hand did not 

change from the April 2019 WCJ hearing to the October 2019 WCJ hearing; he still 

has stiffness and a lack of range of motion that extends from his wrist across the 

back of his hand, and no doctor has released him to return to his pre-injury carpentry 

job. See R.R. at 35a, 64a-66a. Claimant declared that he cannot return to his preinjury job. See R.R. at 66a.

Claimant acknowledged that Dr. Diaz-Garcia’s surgical intervention 

was only for his three fingers, not his hand or wrist, and Dr. Diaz-Garcia’s treatment 

focused on the three fingers. See R.R. at 39a-40a, 43a. He explained that physical 
10

therapy extended to an uninjured finger next to the three injured ones because it, too, 

had gotten stiff due to immobilization of the other three. See R.R. at 38a-39a.

Claimant also presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Thomas, who 

first examined Claimant on April 10, 2019. See R.R. at 97a-100a. At that time, 

Claimant complained to Dr. Thomas of stiffness in all of the fingers of his right hand

(not his thumb), and decreased range of motion in the joints of his index and long 

fingers on that hand.

11

 See R.R. at 107a, 109a-110a. Dr. Thomas also observed that 

Claimant had decreased right hand grip strength. See R.R. at 119a, 121a-122a. Dr. 

Thomas obtained an imaging study of Claimant’s right hand that revealed 

deformities of the third and fourth fingers and mild, preexisting arthritis. See R.R. 

at 110a. Dr. Thomas reported Claimant’s injury as a “[c]rushing injury of right wrist 

and hand,” R.R. at 99a, because “the bone [wa]s broken, the skin [wa]s crushed, the 

soft tissues [we]re crushed, [and] the extensor tendons [we]re not only cut but they

[were] macerated from the pressure going through the hand . . . [.]” R.R. at 117a; 

see also R.R. at 112a-113a. Dr. Thomas prescribed anti-inflammatory medication 

and cream to help decrease Claimant’s swelling and resultant discomfort, and 

directed him to return in three weeks. See R.R. at 110a-111a. 

Dr. Thomas recalled that Claimant’s complaints and condition were

unchanged at Claimant’s May 1, 2019 visit, and noted that Claimant had right hand 

stiffness. See R.R. at 95a-96a, 111a. He recollected that Claimant had not obtained 

the anti-inflammatory medication or cream because “[Employer was] not paying for 

it[,]” R.R. at 111a, so he gave Claimant a heating pad to provide Claimant relief and 

to decrease swelling. See R.R. at 112a.

Dr. Thomas summarized that, during Claimant’s follow-up visit on 

June 26, 2019, Claimant reported the heating pad had afforded him some relief, but 

11 Dr. Thomas acknowledged that his April 10, 2019 report erroneously referenced that 

Claimant was right-handed. See R.R. at 99a, 108a.
11

he was still unable to grasp a hammer or other tools necessary to perform his preinjury job. See R.R. at 113a, 140a-141a. Dr. Thomas referred Claimant to Dr. 

Ditano, who evaluated Claimant on July 11, 2019, recommended a CT scan of 

Claimant’s right hand12 to consider whether Claimant would benefit from an MCP 

joint release13 of his third, fourth, and fifth fingers, and Dr. Ditano “was going to 

keep [Claimant] off work.” R.R. at 114a; see also R.R. at 112a-115a, 119a, 122a123a, 142a-143a. Dr. Thomas did not examine Claimant again after referring 

Claimant to Dr. Ditano. See R.R. at 119a, 123a.

Dr. Thomas acknowledged that Claimant did not mention his right wrist 

on Dr. Thomas’s intake report, and that his treatment records did not reference right 

wrist or hand fractures or abnormalities. See R.R. at 121a, 123a, 126a. However, 

Dr. Thomas opined:

The force that goes through your fingers with a radial saw 

and a two-by-four, to cause that amount of damage, puts 

an excessive amount of pressure through the wrist and the 

forearm, let alone the extensor tendons that were repaired 

and revised by [Claimant’s] original hand surgeon; 

starting at the elbow, they go by the wrist, and into the 

hand. So they’re shortened at the fingers, they’re surely

irritated by the wrist. So I don’t think a wrist complaint is 

uncommon at all.

R.R. at 116a-117a.

Dr. Thomas agreed with Dr. Kann’s assessment that Claimant lost 50% 

of the use of this third, fourth, and fifth fingers on his right hand, but disagreed that 

Claimant did not have an injury separate and apart from the three digits. See R.R. at 

117a-118a. Rather, Dr. Thomas concluded that, “by definition, with the amount of 

12 The CT scan results were not available at the time of Dr. Thomas’s deposition. See R.R. 

at 122a.

13 Dr. Thomas described that MCP joint release surgery consists of “limited incisions where 

[the surgeon] release[s] the adhesions or the scar tissue around the joints to increase motion.” R.R. 

at 114a; see also R.R. at 115a.
12

force that it takes to create this trauma, there’s more than just those fingers that are 

injured.” R.R. at 118a. Accordingly, Dr. Thomas declared with a reasonable degree 

of medical certainty that Claimant 

had a crush injury to his hand which involved the third, 

fourth, and fifth fingers with resulting [] pain in the 

wrist/forearm area, because the extensor tendons that are 

involved in the hand start at the lateral aspect of the 

humeral epicondyle and become shortened at the hand, 

and then bother the entire wrist and arm.

R.R. at 119a; see also R.R. at 120a, 123a-124a. 

When asked: “Doctor, looking through your notes, is it fair to say that 

you’re [sic] diagnosis throughout your treatment has been a crush injury of the right 

wrist and hand?” Dr. Thomas responded: “Yes.” R.R. at 119a; see also R.R. at 96a, 

99a, 141a. He confirmed that, although his three examinations focused primarily on 

Claimant’s three damaged fingers, they also included Claimant’s right wrist and 

hand. See R.R. at 96a, 99a, 124a, 141a. Dr. Thomas further agreed with Dr. Kann 

that Claimant could use his right hand as a helper hand. See R.R. at 125a. 

At the October 29, 2019 WCJ hearing, the WCJ admitted into evidence 

Dr. Ditano’s August 20, 2019 report, in which Dr. Ditano summarized that Claimant 

still experienced stiffness in his injured fingers and could not make a full fist, and 

diagnosed Claimant with right hand stiffness and crushing injuries to his right wrist 

and hand. See R.R. at 165a-166a, 218a. Dr. Ditano concluded:

At this point, [Claimant] is pain free and he is disabled. I

don’t believe that surgical treatment would make his issue 

much better. He may get some better motion at the MCP 

joint, but it wouldn’t do more than that. I told [Claimant] 

we can given [sic] it a try if he would like to not have 

surgery at this point. Follow up with me if he changes his 

mind.

R.R. at 166a.
13

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

finding:

1. After review and consideration of the testimony and 

evidence of record, along with the arguments of counsel 

for the respective parties, that which has been accepted 

supports the denial of the Suspension Petition. The 

testimony and evidence supportive of this determination 

follows[:]

The most compelling reasons supporting the denial of 

[Employer’s] request [sic] relief are [Claimant’s] age of 

61 years (as reported during the course of the litigation on 

the Suspension Petition), and his occupation as a 

carpenter. Work as a carpenter requires the extensive use 

of one’s hands, inclusive of relatively fine (neurological) 

motor skills. Given the nature and extent of the injury to 

[Claimant’s] hand, his contention that he continues to 

sustain disability separate and apart to the specific loss of 

use of the digits involved is accepted, and is supported by 

the considerations reviewed above, as well as the 

testimony of Dr. [] Thomas, his treating orthopod. Dr. 

Thomas indicated that [Claimant] would have difficulty 

grasping a hammer, and indicated that [Claimant] has 

continued to remain subject to stiffness and pain in the 

injured area of his hand, as well as up into his wrist and 

arm. As such, Dr. Thomas concluded that [Claimant] has 

continued to remain disabled from his pre-injury 

employment, as he does not have the ability to grasp a 

hammer or other tool[s] needed to perform his job duties, 

and also indicated that [Claimant’s] pain and stiffness has 

extended considerably beyond the injured area of his hand, 

up into his wrist and arm, and these conclusions comport 

very reasonably with the nature and extent of [Claimant’s]

injury to his right hand. Dr. Thomas’[s] opinions and 

conclusions are supported by his clinical findings, as 

described by him in his deposition testimony. These 

include his clinical description of the injuries sustained to 

[Claimant’s] right hand, as well as medical and surgical 

treatment which has followed.

Dr. [] Kann, [Employer’s] consulting orthopod, has 

indicated that he believes [Claimant] is only subject to the 

loss of 50% of the third, fourth, and fifth digits of his right 
14

hand, thus supporting [Employer’s] contention that 

[Claimant] has sustained loss of use of these digits in this 

amount. Dr. Kann’s conclusion is certainly reasonable, 

but has been deemed less credible and persuasive than the 

opinions and conclusions of Dr. Thomas, again, for the 

reasons reviewed by him in his deposition testimony, as 

well as those reviewed above.

WCJ Dec. at 25-26 (R.R. at 233a-234a). 

The WCJ summarized:

Claimant’s credible testimony and the medical evidence of 

record demonstrate that Claimant’s injury goes beyond 

just his three fingers. That evidence shows that Claimant’s 

crush injury involves an injury separate and apart going 

down into Claimant’s hand and wrist. As such, Claimant 

suffered a work injury on March 28, 2018[,] separate and 

apart from the specific loss, and as such, the Suspension 

Petition must fail.

WCJ Dec. at 22 (R.R. at 230a).

The WCJ concluded:

[Employer] has failed to sustain its burden of proof in the 

context of its Suspension Petition . . . , and accordingly 

said [Suspension P]etition has been denied.

More specifically, [Employer] has failed to sustain its 

burden of establishing that [Claimant] has experienced 

specific loss of use only of 50% of his third, fourth, and 

fifth digits of his right hand, as the testimony of [Claimant]

has been deemed credible, and accepted, as it comports 

very reasonably with the nature and extent of the injuries 

sustained by him, as well as the opinions and conclusions 

of Dr. Thomas[.]

WCJ Dec. at 26 (R.R. at 234a).

The law is well established:

The WCJ is the fact[-]finder, and it is solely for the

WCJ . . . to assess credibility and to resolve conflicts in the 

evidence. Neither the Board nor this Court may reweigh 
15

the evidence or the WCJ’s credibility determinations.[14]

In addition, it is solely for the WCJ, as the fact[-]finder, to

determine what weight to give to any evidence. . . . As 

such, the WCJ may reject the testimony of any witness in 

whole or in part, even if that testimony is uncontradicted.

W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cochenour), 251 

A.3d 467, 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (quoting Hawbaker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal 

Bd. (Kriner’s Quality Roofing Servs. & Uninsured Emp. Guar. Fund), 159 A.3d 61, 

69 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted)).

Moreover,

“[f]or purposes of appellate review, it is irrelevant whether 

there is evidence to support contrary findings; if 

substantial evidence supports the [fact-finder]’s necessary 

findings, those findings will not be disturbed on 

appeal.”[15] Verizon [Pa.] Inc. v. Workers’ Comp[.] Appeal 

[Bd.] (Mills), 116 A.3d 1157, 1162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 

When “performing a substantial evidence analysis, this 

14 Specifically, “Section 422(a) [of the Act, 77 P.S. § 834,] does not 

permit a party to challenge or second-guess the WCJ’s reasons for

credibility determinations. [Thus, u]nless made arbitrarily or 

capriciously, a WCJ’s credibility determinations will be upheld on 

appeal.”[FN]16 Pa. Uninsured Emp’rs Guar. Fund v. Workers’

Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lyle), 91 A.3d 297, 303 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) 

(quoting Dorsey v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Crossing Constr.

Co.), 893 A.2d 191, 195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)).

[FN]16 Capricious disregard “occurs only when the fact-finder 

deliberately ignores relevant, competent evidence.” 

Williams v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (USX Corp.-

Fairless Works), 862 A.2d 137, 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). 

Capricious disregard, by definition, does not exist where, as 

here, the WCJ expressly considered and rejected the

evidence. Id.

Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bromley), 161 A.3d 446, 462 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2017).

15 “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.” Obimak Enter. v. Dep’t of Health, 200 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2018) (quoting B.B. Kim’s Mkt., Inc. v. Dep’t of Health, Div. of Women, Infants & Child.

(WIC), 762 A.2d 1134, 1135 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000)).
16

Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to 

the party who prevailed before the fact-finder.” WAWA v. 

Workers’ Comp[.] Appeal [Bd.] (Seltzer), 951 A.2d 405, 

408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Further, when determining 

whether substantial evidence exists to support a finding of 

fact, this Court must give to the party in whose favor the 

appealed decision was decided “the benefit of all 

inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn 

from the evidence.” B.J.K. v. Dep[’t] of Pub[.] Welfare, 

773 A.2d 1271, 1276 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

Obimak Enter. v. Dep’t of Health, 200 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). In the 

instant matter, the Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision on the basis that substantial 

record evidence supported the WCJ’s factual findings. See Board Op. at 4-6 (R.R. 

at 250a-252a).

In order to succeed on its Suspension Petition, Employer had to prove 

that Claimant’s work injury was limited to the 50% loss of use of the third, fourth, 

and fifth digits of his right hand. The WCJ concluded, based on the record evidence 

he deemed credible, that Employer failed to meet its burden. Employer’s appeal 

essentially is an attack on the WCJ’s credibility determinations. Because the WCJ’s 

credibility determinations were clearly supported by the record, this Court may not 

disturb them. See Verizon Pa. Inc.; see also Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist. Moreover, 

giving Claimant “the benefit of all inferences that can logically and reasonably be 

drawn from the evidence[,]” Obimak Enter., 200 A.3d at 126 (quoting B.J.K., 773 

A.2d at 1276), as we must, this Court holds that substantial evidence supported the 

WCJ’s findings that Claimant suffered disability due to the loss of use of his right 

wrist and hand separate and apart from his accepted work injuries. See Pocono

Mountain Sch. Dist. Accordingly, the WCJ did not err by denying Employer’s 

Suspension Petition. 
17

Based on the foregoing, the Board’s order is affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon and Judge Dumas did not participate in the decision in this 

matter.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Reed Shaffer Construction and :

Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, :

Petitioners :

:

v. :

:

Glynn Smith (Workers’ Compensation :

Appeal Board), : No. 1003 C.D. 2021

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6

th day of July, 2022, the Workers’ Compensation 

Appeal Board’s August 23, 2021 order is affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge