IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thomas Knowlton, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 618 C.D. 2021

: Submitted: November 5, 2021

Flemingtown Instrument Co. Inc. :

(Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge

HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY PRESIDENT JUDGE BROBSON FILED: December 29, 2021

Thomas Knowlton (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board (Board), dated May 5, 2021. The Board affirmed the 

decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), which, inter alia, granted 

Claimant’s claim petition for a closed period. For the reasons set forth below, we 

affirm the Board’s order.

Claimant worked for Flemingtown Instrument Co. Inc. (Employer) as a 

steamfitter. On May 1, 2017, Claimant suffered an injury in the course and scope of 

his employment when he bent over to retrieve a saw from a gang box and felt pain 

in the left side of his lower back. Claimant filed a claim petition on June 8, 2017, 

alleging that he sustained injuries to his lower back, a herniated disc, and 
2

radiculopathy while working for Employer on May 1, 2017. Claimant sought 

payment of benefits from May 4, 2017, onward. The claim petition was assigned to 

a WCJ, and Employer filed an answer in opposition to the claim petition.

1

In support of his claim petition, Claimant testified before the WCJ at a hearing 

held on June 29, 2017. Claimant testified that his job duties for Employer included 

cutting, bending, and threading pipe; putting screw pipe together; running tubing; 

welding; setting up tripods; and using tools such as electric band saws, hammer 

drills, and regular hand tools. (Certified Record (C.R.), Item No. 19, at 5.) Claimant 

further testified that, on the day the alleged injury occurred, he “bent over to pick a 

porta band up out of a gang box and [he] felt pain in [his] lower back.” (Id.) When 

asked how much the “gang box that [he was] lifting” weighed, Claimant clarified 

that he “wasn’t lifting the gang box. [He] was reaching in[to] it to get a saw out of 

it.” (Id. at 6.) Claimant further testified to, inter alia, the pain and other symptoms 

he experienced following the work-related injury, his age of 33 years and lack of 

symptoms prior to May 1, 2017, and the treatment he received for the work-related 

injury. (Id. at 5-17.)

Claimant also presented the deposition testimony of Steven J. Valentino, 

D.O., who is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon and fellowship-trained spine 

surgeon. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 5a-6a.) Dr. Valentino testified that Claimant 

first came into his care on June 20, 2017, at which time, he discussed Claimant’s 

complaints, performed a physical examination of Claimant, and reviewed a magnetic 

1 Claimant subsequently filed a penalty petition, averring that, inter alia, Employer failed 

to issue a timely notice of compensation payable, notice of temporary compensation payable, 

notice of compensation denial, or agreement for compensation in violation of Section 406.1 of the 

Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by the Act 

of February 8, 1972, P.L. 25, 77 P.S. § 717.1. The WCJ denied and dismissed the penalty petition, 

which is not at issue in this appeal.
3

resonance image (MRI) of Claimant’s lumbar spine that was taken on May 22, 2017. 

(Id. at 7a-10a, 12a.) At the time of the appointment, Claimant was complaining of 

back pain that was localized to his lumbar/sacral region and radiated into the back 

of his left leg to the outside of his foot, along with numbness and weakness. (Id.

at 7a.) Dr. Valentino stated that the description of Claimant’s symptoms was 

consistent with an “S1 radiculopathy or disc problem at L5-S1.” (Id. at 8a.) 

Dr. Valentino testified that Claimant told him that his symptoms were worse with 

standing and extension, and they lessened with rest and recumbency. (Id.) 

Dr. Valentino also stated that Claimant related the symptoms to the work injury that 

occurred on May 1, 2017, “when, while employed as a steamfitter, he lifted a tool 

from a gang box and felt pain in the low back.” (Id.) Dr. Valentino further explained 

that, while Claimant continued to work following the May 1, 2017 work-related 

injury, he experienced increased pain over the following days. (Id.) Claimant 

“denied any prior history of symptoms or injury to the lumbar spine.” (Id. at 8a-9a.)

Dr. Valentino explained that his physical examination revealed that 

Claimant’s “range of motion of the back was significantly limited in all planes,” that 

“[e]xtension combined with side bending reproduced back pain,” and that Claimant 

had “significant spasm” and “facet irritation emanating from the lumbar spine.” 

(R.R. at 9a.) Dr. Valentino also stated that a “[s]traight leg raising test reproduced 

left leg pain at 40 degrees.” (Id.) Further, Claimant “had an absent left S1 reflex, 

consistent with a symptomatic left L5-S1 disc herniation[, and] four-out-of-five 

weakness lateral ankle pronators with decreased sensation left S1 greater than L5 

dermatome.” (Id. at 9a-10a.) Dr. Valentino also explained that a review of

Claimant’s MRI “confirmed that he had a left paracentral disc herniation at L5-S1,” 

which Dr. Valentino characterized as “compatible with his symptoms and his 
4

mechanism of injury,” as well as “some early age-related degenerative changes.” 

(Id. at 9a, 12a.) Dr. Valentino explained that, given the objective MRI findings and 

that Claimant had never had any back problems before, it was “clear that [Claimant’s 

condition] is causally related to the work injury by direct cause.” (Id. at 12a.) In so 

doing, Dr. Valentino noted that it was not typical to see a degenerative herniation in 

a 33-year-old. (Id. at 13a.) Dr. Valentino also testified that, after reviewing the 

MRI, performing his physical examination, and discussing Claimant’s complaints, 

his initial impression was that Claimant “had residuals of his work-related injury, to 

include lumbar strain, lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy, and facet 

syndrome.” (Id. at 10a.) Dr. Valentino explained that, following Claimant’s initial 

appointment, he found that Claimant “continued to suffer residuals of his work 

injury and was not able to return to work.” (Id. at 14a.)

Dr. Valentino explained that he saw Claimant again on July 25, 2017, at which 

point Claimant reported the same complaints and wanted to move on with more 

aggressive intervention, but that Claimant’s treatment thus far had been limited 

because his workers’ compensation claim had not yet been accepted. (R.R. 

at 14a-15a, 19a.) Dr. Valentino stated that, to date, Claimant had received 

chiropractic care and acupuncture. (Id. at 14a-15a.) Noting that he had also 

reviewed additional treatment records following his initial appointment with 

Claimant, including records from Dennis Ivill, M.D.,2as recent as August 28, 2017, 

Dr. Valentino testified that “so far, [Claimant] has not demonstrated any significant 

gains in improvement” and was not able to return to work. (Id. at 11a, 15a-16a.) 

Dr. Valentino stated that his current diagnosis for Claimant would be “[l]umbar disc 

2

It appears that Dr. Ivill provided acupuncture to Claimant, (R.R. at 58a), and at one point 

recommended “trigger point injections” for Claimant. (Id. at 16a.)
5

herniation left at L5-S1, with radiculopathy, as well as facet syndrome, in addition 

to residuals of a lumbar strain.” (Id. at 16a.) When asked whether Claimant’s

“mechanism of injury, picking up a large or a heavy object, [is] consistent with the 

injury that [Claimant] is presenting with,” Dr. Valentino responded affirmatively, 

further opining that Claimant’s “symptoms relating to treatment and disability are 

related to the work injury which occurred” on May 1, 2017. (Id. at 17a.) 

Dr. Valentino also confirmed that all of his conclusions were offered within a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty. (Id. at 17a-18a.)

On cross-examination, Dr. Valentino explained that he reviewed both the MRI 

films and MRI report. (R.R. at 20a-21a.) With respect to the degenerative changes 

revealed on the MRI, Dr. Valentino stated that Claimant had “some facet arthropathy 

and a little bit of arthritis in the facet, and [Dr. Valentino thought Claimant]

aggravated that facet syndrome in work.” (Id. at 21a.) Dr. Valentino did not, 

however, believe that “[t]he disc herniation at [L]5-[S]1 [was] degenerative. 

[Rather, Dr. Valentino] would deem [the disc herniation as] acute and related to the 

work injury.” (Id.) Dr. Valentino confirmed that the facet findings were more 

right-sided, stated that Claimant had complained of bilateral low back pain that was 

not localized to one area, and explained that “[t]he sciatic complaints or 

radiculopathy is very specific to the left leg.” (Id. at 21a-22a.) Dr. Valentino also 

confirmed that, in his reports, Dr. Ivill indicated that Claimant’s sensation was found 

to be intact, his strength was normal, and his distal pulses were intact bilaterally in 

his lower extremities. (Id. at 23a-24a.) Dr. Valentino further admitted that Dr. Ivill’s 

findings were basically identical across all the times that Dr. Ivill treated Claimant 

through August 28, 2017. (Id. at 24a.) Dr. Valentino explained, however, that he 

did not find it “odd” that there was no change in Claimant’s symptoms during that 
6

time. (Id.) Dr. Valentino also admitted that no medical professional, including 

himself, had noted any atrophy and that the only diagnoses he was relating to 

Claimant’s reported work injury were to the low back and lower extremities. 

(Id. at 24a-25a.) Dr. Valentino affirmed that Claimant never reported any neck pain

to him. (Id. at 25a.)

In opposition to Claimant’s claim petition, Employer presented the deposition 

testimony of David T. Yucha, M.D., who is board certified in orthopedic surgery.3 

(R.R. at 57a.) Dr. Yucha conducted an independent medical examination (IME) of

Claimant on October 5, 2017, which included reviewing Claimant’s medical records, 

taking a history from Claimant, and performing a physical examination. 

(Id. at 57a-59a.) Dr. Yucha explained that Claimant reported that, on May 1, 2017, 

he “was working as a steamfitter and was lifting a tool out of a gang box and felt a, 

quote, pinch, unquote in his lower back.” (Id. at 58a.) Claimant also reported pain 

going down his left leg, some pain in his neck, and “low back pain with transient 

numbness in the left leg” at certain points in time. (Id. at 58a-59a.) Dr. Yucha 

explained that Claimant worked following the injury, but he reported that he could 

not get out of bed a few days later and has not been able to work in any capacity 

since that time. (Id. at 58a.)

Dr. Yucha indicated that the MRI of Claimant’s lumbar spine “showed a mild 

degeneration of the L5-S1 disc with a small central herniation encroaching on the 

left S1 nerve root with mild central canal stenosis.” (R.R. at 58a.) Dr. Yucha further 

indicated that, at the time of his IME, Claimant was receiving physical therapy a 

3 Employer also presented the testimony of Andrew Conley, a general foreman of 

the pipefitters and instrumentation technicians for Employer, and Leon Crawford, III, an 

instrument technician for Employer and shop steward for the Steamfitters union. (C.R., Item 

No. 20, at 4, 15.)
7

couple of days a week. (Id.) Dr. Yucha explained that the notes from those physical 

therapy sessions, particularly on August 14, 2017, revealed that Claimant’s “strength 

was good”—i.e., “[h]e had five[-]out[-]of[-]five strength, which is normal strength, 

in both lower extremities”—and he had “normal sensation in his bilateral lower 

extremities.” (Id.)

With respect to his physical examination of Claimant, Dr. Yucha noted that 

Claimant had a “mildly compensated gait,” as well as what Dr. Yucha described as 

a “magnified symptom” in the form of an “exquisite” and “unexpected” amount of 

pain “out of proportion to the amount of pressure applied” upon very slight palpation 

of his lumbar spine. (R.R. at 59a.) Dr. Yucha further explained that testing on 

Claimant’s lower back resulted in pain with “no organic etiology” and that, when he

“did the manual muscle testing[, Claimant] had four[-]out[-]of[-]five strength or a 

little bit of limited strength in the lower extremity musculature,” which was in 

contrast to the normal strength findings in the August 2017 physical therapy notes. 

(Id.) Dr. Yucha explained that continued testing of Claimant’s lumbar spine 

revealed that Claimant’s sensory nerves were intact bilaterally and that Claimant 

experienced “excruciating discomfort” in “flexion, extension, side-to-side bending, 

and side-to-side twisting” in range of motion testing. (Id.) Dr. Yucha stated that he 

performed straight-leg testing to “examine for disc pathology that[ is] encroaching 

on a nerve root, and [Claimant’s] examination was negative.” (Id.) Further, 

Claimant’s “reflexes were negative, and his quad girth or quad strength was equal 

and symmetric bilaterally. . . . [Claimant] had no . . . long tract signs or nervous 

system signs with testing for the Babinski maneuver and looking for clonus with 

physical examination of the lower extremity.” (Id.) Based upon the results of his 

IME, Dr. Yucha opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that 
8

Claimant had suffered a “strain and sprain to the neck and the lumbar spine” on 

May 1, 2017, while working for Employer, and that Claimant “has completely 

recovered and is fit for return to work full-time, full duty without any subsequent 

care related to the injuries reported” on May 1, 2017. (Id.) Dr. Yucha reiterated 

that, in his opinion, Claimant requires no further treatment and is fit for return to 

work in his pre-injury position full-time, full duty. (Id. at 60a.)

On cross-examination, Dr. Yucha confirmed that the only medical records he 

had to review at the time of his IME were those listed in his notes, and that the last 

record that he reviewed pertaining to Claimant’s condition was dated 

August 28, 2017. (R.R. at 60a-61a.) Dr. Yucha admitted that it was fair to say that 

he had “no idea” what Claimant’s condition was at the time of the deposition and 

that he only saw Claimant on one occasion. (Id. at 61a.) Dr. Yucha also stated that 

Claimant had not mentioned any prior back injuries and that Claimant’s medical 

records did not contain “notations of positive Waddell’s signs or any symptom 

magnification.” (Id.) Dr. Yucha explained that he did not believe there was any 

“organic etiology or imaging studies to reflect that [Claimant] should have ongoing 

symptoms.” (Id.) Dr. Yucha further admitted that, while he had the MRI report, he

did not see the MRI films, explaining that “we typically rely on radiologists’ expert 

opinions . . . to help formulate our diagnosis and management plan.” (Id.) Dr. Yucha 

confirmed that the MRI report indicated “that at the L5-S1 level there[ is] a small 

central disc herniation which is impinging upon the thecal sac and left S1 nerve 

root,” and that Claimant’s “subjective complaints are left-sided relative to the leg.” 

(Id. at 61a-62a.)

Dr. Yucha explained that he has seen disc herniation in 33-year-old 

individuals and admitted that it was possible that some type of trauma could have 
9

caused the disc herniation. (R.R. at 62a.) When asked if it was also possible that 

some type of trauma could have aggravated or exacerbated an asymptomatic 

condition such as a disc herniation to where it was symptomatic, Dr. Yucha 

responded affirmatively but added that “there are many people walking around with 

asymptomatic disc herniations especially in the absence of any finding on physical 

examination such as a straight-leg raise, weakness, or decrease in sensation that 

would support that disc being symptomatic.” (Id.) Dr. Yucha also stated that 

weakness “could be” evidence of a nerve irritation, with the same being the case for 

“the straight-leg test and decrease in sensation.” (Id.)

By decision and order circulated on May 11, 2018, the WCJ granted

Claimant’s claim petition for a closed period. In so doing, the WCJ credited 

Claimant’s testimony “with respect to the occurrence of the alleged work injury on 

the basis of . . . Claimant’s demeanor during his testimony before the [WCJ]” and

found that Claimant’s testimony established that “Claimant bent over for the 

retrieval of a saw from a gang box and felt pain in the left side of his lower back on 

. . . May 1, 2017.” (WCJ’s Decision, May 11, 2018, at 3-4.) The WCJ also made 

the following relevant findings with respect to the testimony of Dr. Valentino and 

Dr. Yucha:

3. . . . .

Drs. Valentino and Yucha are credible to extents. Dr. Valentino 

is credible about . . . Claimant’s experience of a lumbar strain and 

lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy as [a] result[] of the work 

injury on the bases of his familiarity with . . . Claimant’s condition as 

. . . Claimant’s treating orthopedic surgeon, of his evaluations of . . .

Claimant at a more proximal time to . . . Claimant’s work injury than 

Dr. Yucha’s evaluation of . . . Claimant, of the findings on Claimant’s

[MRI] test on a date near . . . Claimant’s work injury, of the clinical 

findings during Dr. Valentino’s examination of . . . Claimant and in 

support of . . . Claimant’s radiculopathy, and of . . . Claimant’s 

complaints in support of Dr. Valentino’s diagnoses of lumbar strain, 
10

herniation, and radiculopathy. Dr. Valentino is more credible than 

Dr. Yucha with respect to . . . Claimant’s herniation as a result of the 

work injury because the objective findings on the MRI of . . . Claimant 

substantiate Dr. Valentino’s diagnosis of a herniation and because 

Dr. Yucha’s testimony didn’t refute Dr. Valentino’s testimony about 

the occurrence of the disc herniation from the alleged work injury and 

didn’t establish any reason, inclusive of the alleged work injury and/or 

other condition or degeneration, for the existence of the disc herniation.

. . . .

Dr. Yucha is credible with respect to Dr. Yucha’s diagnosis of 

lumbar sprain as a result of . . . Claimant’s work injury because 

Dr. Yucha, as a board[-]certified orthopedic surgeon has an expertise 

for the diagnosis of alleged orthopedic injuries as those of . . . Claimant. 

Dr. Yucha is more credible and persuasive than Dr. Valentino about . . .

Claimant’s recovery from the work injury by October 5, 2017[,]

because Dr. Valentino didn’t evaluate . . . Claimant’s condition on or 

about the time of Dr. Yucha’s evaluation, because statements in the 

reviewed medical records by Dr. Yucha established a plethora of 

normal findings by other medical practitioners near the time of 

Dr. Valentino’s last evaluation of . . . Claimant and in support of a 

recovery, and because the results of Dr. Yucha’s evaluation of . . .

Claimant supported Dr. Yucha’s opinions.

. . . .

15. . . . Although Dr. Valentino testified that . . . Claimant lifted a 

tool from a gang box and felt pain in the low back on May 1, 2017[,]

and that . . . Claimant’s lifting activity with a large or heavy object was

consistent with . . . Claimant’s injury, Dr. Valentino’s testimony about

the occurrence of the alleged work injury contrasted with . . . Claimant’s 

testimony about the occurrence of the alleged work injury and . . .

Claimant bent over and reached into a box for the retrieval of a saw, as 

opposed to his performance of any actual lifting activity, and felt pain, 

in accordance with . . . Claimant’s testimony.

16. Regarding diagnostic test results, Dr. Valentino’s testimony

established that a[n] MRI of . . . Claimant’s lumbar spine on 

May 22, 2017[,] showed a paracentral disc herniation at the levels of

L5-S1, specifically completely compatible findings with . . . Claimant’s 

symptoms and mechanism of . . . Claimant’s alleged work injury in 

Dr. Valentino’s opinion, and some early age-related degenerative 

changes.

. . . .
11

24. Dr. Yucha’s testimony established that the report of the MRI is 

indicative of a small central disc herniation with an impingement upon

the thecal sac and the left sided nerve root at the level of S1. Although

Dr. Yucha testified as aforesaid, Dr. Yucha’s testimony didn’t refute

Dr. Valentino’s testimony about the occurrence of the disc herniation

from the alleged work injury and didn’t establish any reason, inclusive

of the alleged work injury and/or other condition or degeneration, for 

the existence of the disc herniation.[4]

(Id. at 3-4, 6, 8.) Based on her findings of fact and credibility determinations, the 

WCJ concluded that Claimant met his burden of establishing his entitlement to 

workers’ compensation benefits for the May 1, 2017 work-related injury, and that

Employer was thus liable to Claimant for the payment of benefits and related 

expenses for the period beginning May 4, 2017, through the date of Claimant’s full 

recovery on October 5, 2017. (Id. at 9.)

Both Claimant and Employer appealed the WCJ’s decision to the Board. 

Relevant to the appeal presently before this Court, Claimant challenged the WCJ’s 

decision on the grounds that it was neither supported by substantial evidence nor 

well-reasoned. Claimant essentially contended that, while the WCJ credited 

Dr. Valentino over Dr. Yucha in diagnosing Claimant with a lumbar strain and disc 

herniation with radiculopathy as a result of the May 1, 2017 work-related injury, 

which injury was disabling as of May 4, 2017, the WCJ credited Dr. Yucha over 

Dr. Valentino in finding that Claimant had fully recovered from the May 1, 2017 

work-related injury as of October 5, 2017, even though Dr. Yucha did not include a 

disc herniation and radiculopathy within those diagnoses and did not testify that 

4 The WCJ did not find Dr. Valentino credible with respect to his diagnoses of facet 

syndrome or aggravation thereof as a result of the May 1, 2017 work-related incident, and the WCJ 

found Dr. Valentino more credible in repudiation of Dr. Yucha’s diagnoses as they related to any 

neck sprain or strain. (WCJ’s Decision, May 11, 2018, at 3-4, 7-8.) These determinations are not 

at issue in this appeal.
12

Claimant had recovered from those diagnoses. Claimant, thus, contended that the 

termination of his benefits as of October 5, 2017, was improper.

On May 24, 2019, the Board issued a decision remanding the matter to the 

WCJ for further proceedings on Claimant’s claim petition, agreeing that the WCJ 

had made findings that appeared to be internally inconsistent. (Board’s Decision, 

May 24, 2019, at 5.) The Board observed that, while the WCJ credited 

Dr. Valentino’s opinion that Claimant sustained a work-related lumbar disc 

herniation with radiculopathy, the WCJ also credited Dr. Yucha’s opinion that 

Claimant had fully recovered from the May 1, 2017 work-related injury. (Id. at 6.) 

The Board, however, noted that Dr. Yucha opined only that Claimant sustained a 

cervical and lumbar strain and sprain. (Id.) Concluding that these findings 

conflicted, and given that the WCJ had credited both experts, the Board reasoned 

that clarification of the WCJ’s decision was necessary. (Id.) The Board also noted 

that Dr. Yucha admitted that Claimant had a disc herniation, but he did not relate the 

herniation to the work injury, nor did he opine that Claimant had fully recovered 

from that disc herniation. (Id.) The Board observed that the WCJ, however, 

determined that the disc herniation was related to Claimant’s work injury. (Id.) The 

Board, therefore, concluded that there did not appear to be evidence to support the 

WCJ’s determination that Claimant was fully recovered from the entirety of his 

work-related injury. (Id.) Concluding that it was unable to render effective appellate 

review under the circumstances, the Board remanded the matter to the WCJ “to

provide clarification on her findings, including findings as to the exact description 

of Claimant’s work injuries, and whether Claimant had fully recovered from all of 

the accepted injuries.” (Id.)
13

On remand, by decision and order circulated on February 19, 2020, the WCJ 

clarified her findings of fact, in relevant part, as follows:

14. . . . Claimant is credible with respect to the occurrence of the 

alleged work injury on the basis of . . . Claimant’s demeanor during his 

testimony before the [WCJ]. . . .

15. Drs. Valentino and Yucha are credible to extents. Dr. Valentino 

is credible about . . . Claimant’s experience of a lumbar strain as a result 

of the work injury on the bases of his familiarity with . . . Claimant’s 

condition as . . . Claimant’s treating orthopedic surgeon, of the clinical 

findings during Dr. Valentino’s examination of . . . Claimant, and of 

. . . Claimant’s complaints in support of Dr. Valentino’s diagnosis of 

lumbar strain. Dr. Valentino isn’t credible with respect to . . .

Claimant’s herniation and radiculopathy as [a] result[] of the work 

injury because Dr. Valentino testified that . . . Claimant’s lifting activity 

with a large or heavy object was consistent with . . . Claimant’s injury, 

because . . . Claimant testified that . . . Claimant bent over for the 

retrieval of a tool and felt pain in his lower back as the mechanism of 

the alleged work injury, and because Dr. Valentino didn’t have an 

accurate history of the mechanism of the alleged work injury when he 

attributed . . . Claimant’s diagnosed conditions to . . . Claimant’s lifting 

activities.

. . . .

18. Dr. Valentino’s testimony about the occurrence of the alleged 

work injury contrasted with . . . Claimant’s testimony about the 

occurrence of the alleged work injury and . . . Claimant bent over and 

reached into a box for the retrieval of a saw, as opposed to his 

performance of any actual lifting activity, and felt pain, in accordance 

with . . . Claimant’s testimony.

19. Dr. Yucha is credible with respect to Dr. Yucha’s diagnosis of 

lumbar sprain as a result of . . . Claimant’s work injury because 

Dr. Yucha, as a board[-]certified orthopedic surgeon has an expertise 

for the diagnosis of alleged orthopedic injuries as those of . . . Claimant 

and because Dr. Valentino substantiated that diagnosis.

20. Dr. Yucha is credible and persuasive about . . . Claimant’s 

recovery from the work injury by October 5, 2017[,] because 

Dr. Yucha’s clinical findings during his evaluation of . . . Claimant 

substantiated that and statements in the reviewed medical records by 

Dr. Yucha were indicative of a plethora of normal findings by other 
14

medical practitioners near the time of Dr. Valentino’s last evaluation of 

. . . Claimant and in support of a recovery.

21. Dr. Valentino is credible about . . . Claimant’s disability from the 

work injury on June 20, 2017[,] and August 28, 2017[,] because no 

evidence refuted that. Dr. Yucha is credible about . . . Claimant’s 

fitness for his full[-]time, full[-]duty, and pre-injury job on 

October 5, 2017[,] because Dr. Yucha’s clinical findings and the 

plethora of normal findings by other medical practitioners near the time 

of Dr. Valentino’s last evaluation of . . . Claimant supported that.

(WCJ’s Decision, February 19, 2020, at 8-10.)

Based on her findings of fact and credibility determinations, the WCJ again 

concluded that Claimant met his burden of establishing his entitlement to workers’ 

compensation benefits for the May 1, 2017 work-related injury, and that Employer 

was thus liable to Claimant for the payment of benefits and related expenses for the 

period beginning June 20, 2017,

5

through October 5, 2017. Claimant again appealed 

to the Board, arguing, inter alia, that the WCJ’s decision on remand was not 

supported by substantial evidence, well-reasoned, or in accordance with the Board’s 

remand order, and that the WCJ improperly reweighed the evidence in a manner that 

essentially refuted the WCJ’s prior decision.

On May 5, 2021, the Board affirmed the WCJ’s remand decision and order. 

The Board first explained that, on remand, the WCJ specifically credited both 

Dr. Valentino’s and Dr. Yucha’s opinions that Claimant sustained a work-related 

lumbar strain. (Board’s Decision, May 5, 2021, at 6.) Further, the Board noted that 

the WCJ accepted Dr. Valentino’s uncontradicted opinion that Claimant’s lumbar 

injury resulted in disability but rejected Dr. Valentino’s opinion that Claimant 

sustained additional lumbar injuries consisting of a lumbar herniation with 

5 For reasons not apparent to this Court, the WCJ, in her decision on remand, changed the 

start date of her award of a closed period of benefits from May 4, 2017, the first date on which 

Claimant was unable to work following the May 1, 2017 work-related injury, to June 20, 2017, the 

date on which Claimant first treated with Dr. Valentino.
15

radiculopathy. (Id.) The Board explained that the WCJ rejected Dr. Valentino’s 

opinion regarding these additional injuries because Dr. Valentino misunderstood 

Claimant’s mechanism of injury to involve lifting a heavy object, when Claimant 

testified that his injury occurred when he was reaching for a tool. (Id. at 6-7.) The 

Board also observed that the WCJ accepted Dr. Yucha’s testimony that Claimant

had fully recovered from his work-related lumbar sprain as of October 5, 2017. (Id.

at 7.)

Additionally, the Board concluded that the WCJ did not exceed the scope of 

the Board’s remand order by reweighing the record evidence and making additional 

credibility determinations and factual findings. Noting that it had previously

recognized the internally inconsistent findings in the WCJ’s original decision and 

the lack of substantial evidence in support of the WCJ’s findings, the Board 

explained that its order specifically directed the WCJ to “provide clarification on her 

findings, including findings as to the exact description of Claimant’s work injuries,

and whether Claimant had fully recovered from all accepted injuries.” (Board’s 

Decision, May 5, 2021, at 7-8.) The Board explained that, here, the WCJ properly 

reviewed the entire record, added to her findings to clarify her determinations on 

Claimant’s accepted work injuries, and rendered a determination as to Claimant’s

status as fully recovered from the May 1, 2017 work-related injury in satisfaction of 

the Board’s remand order, which required additional findings to resolve the WCJ’s 

previously conflicting findings. (Id. at 8.)

The Board also rejected Claimant’s argument that the WCJ’s finding that 

Claimant fully recovered from his work injuries was not supported by substantial 

evidence. The Board noted that, while Claimant argued that Employer had failed to 

meet its burden to establish full recovery, in a claim petition, it is the claimant who 
16

has the burden to show the extent and duration of his work-related disability. 

(Board’s Decision, May 5, 2021, at 9.) Observing that the WCJ may terminate 

benefits when the credible evidence only supports a limited duration of disability,

the Board explained that, here, the WCJ credited Dr. Valentino and Dr. Yucha

insofar as they determined that Claimant sustained a lumbar sprain. (Id.) The Board 

further explained that the WCJ also accepted Dr. Yucha’s testimony that Claimant

was fully recovered from such injury as of October 5, 2017. (Id.) The Board 

concluded that Dr. Yucha’s credible opinion that Claimant had no ongoing 

work-related disability constituted substantial evidence to support the WCJ’s 

termination of benefits. (Id.) The Board, thus, discerned no error in the WCJ’s 

decision. This appeal followed.

On appeal,6 Claimant raises one issue for our consideration in which he 

challenges the Board’s affirmance of the WCJ’s decision on the grounds that, in 

finding that Claimant merely sustained a lumbar strain as a result of the May 1, 2017 

work-related incident, the WCJ’s decision was based on facts that are contrary to the 

evidence and was not well-reasoned. Given that Claimant has implicated two 

theories of error governed by different legal standards—i.e., substantial evidence 

and reasoned decision—we have separated Claimant’s arguments for purposes of 

discussion.

With regard to whether substantial evidence supports the WCJ’s decision, 

this Court has observed that the WCJ is the ultimate finder of fact in workers’ 

compensation proceedings. Williams v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.

6

“Our review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether 

necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and whether constitutional rights 

were violated.” Combine v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Nat’l Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp.), 

954 A.2d 776, 778 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), appeal denied, 967 A.2d 961 (Pa. 2009).
17

(USX Corp.-Fairless Works), 862 A.2d 137, 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). As factfinder, matters of credibility, conflicting medical evidence, and evidentiary weight 

are within the WCJ’s exclusive province. Id. If the WCJ’s findings are supported 

by substantial evidence, they are binding on appeal. Agresta v. Workers’ Comp.

Appeal Bd. (Borough of Mechanicsburg), 850 A.2d 890, 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). 

We may only reverse a WCJ’s findings if they are unsupported by substantial 

evidence or are arbitrary or capricious. B & T Trucking v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal

Bd. (Paull), 815 A.2d 1167, 1170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). In making this determination, 

we may not “reweigh the evidence or the credibility of the witness[es], but [must] 

simply determine whether the WCJ’s findings have the requisite measure of support 

in the record as a whole.” Elk Mountain Ski Resort, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal

Bd. (Tietz, deceased), 114 A.3d 27, 32 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). It is irrelevant 

whether there is evidence to support contrary findings; the relevant inquiry is 

whether substantial evidence supports the WCJ’s necessary findings. Hoffmaster v.

Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Senco Prods., Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152, 1155 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1998).

Before this Court, Claimant takes issue with the following portion of finding 

of fact 15:

Dr. Valentino isn’t credible with respect to . . . Claimant’s herniation 

and radiculopathy as [a] result[] of the work injury because 

Dr. Valentino testified that . . . Claimant’s lifting activity with a large 

or heavy object was consistent with . . . Claimant’s injury, because . . . 

Claimant testified that . . . Claimant bent over for the retrieval of a tool 

and felt pain in his lower back as the mechanism of the alleged work 

injury, and because Dr. Valentino didn’t have an accurate history of the 

mechanism of the alleged work injury when he attributed . . . Claimant’s 

diagnosed conditions to . . . Claimant’s lifting activities.

(Claimant’s Brief at 15 (emphasis in original) (quoting WCJ’s Decision, 

February 19, 2020, at 9).) Claimant argues that the WCJ’s findings above are 
18

contrary to the evidence because Dr. Valentino’s testimony reveals that he, in fact,

correctly understood that Claimant’s lifting of a tool and feeling pain in his lower 

back was the mechanism of the alleged work injury. Claimant notes that 

Dr. Valentino testified that the work injury “occurred on 5/1/2017 when, while 

employed as a steamfitter, [Claimant] lifted a tool from a gang box and felt pain in 

the low back.” (Claimant’s Brief at 16 (emphasis in original) (quoting R.R. at 8a).) 

Claimant also notes that Dr. Yucha, whom the WCJ deemed to be credible, also 

testified that Claimant sustained a work injury on May 1, 2017, when he “was lifting 

a tool out of a gang box and felt a, quote, pinch, unquote in his lower back.” 

(Claimant’s Brief at 16 (emphasis in original) (quoting R.R. at 58a).) Claimant 

further emphasizes that in the WCJ’s initial decision issued on May 11, 2018, the 

WCJ found that Claimant credibly testified that he “bent over for the retrieval of a 

saw from a gang box and felt pain in the left side of his lower back on . . . 

May 1, 2017.” (Claimant’s Brief at 16 (quoting WCJ’s Decision, May 11, 2018,

at 4).) Claimant submits that even the WCJ’s own factual findings reveal that

Dr. Valentino had a correct understanding of the mechanism of Claimant’s work 

injury. Claimant, thus, argues that the WCJ’s finding that Dr. Valentino was not 

credible based on the WCJ’s assertion that Dr. Valentino misunderstood the 

mechanism of the work injury is mistaken and contrary to the evidence.

In response, Employer argues that the WCJ’s findings are supported by the 

record. Employer challenges Claimant’s position that Dr. Valentino correctly 

understood the mechanism of injury as having occurred when Claimant lifted a tool 

from a gang box and felt pain. Employer takes the position that, in fact, Dr. 

Valentino agreed that the mechanism of injury involved “picking up a large or [. . . ] 

heavy object.” (Employer’s Brief at 14 (emphasis in original) (quoting R.R. at 17a).)
19

Preliminarily, we note that, in both of her decisions, the WCJ found Claimant 

to be credible with respect to the occurrence of the alleged work injury based on

Claimant’s demeanor during his testimony before the WCJ. (WCJ’s Decision, 

May 11, 2018, at 3; WCJ’s Decision, February 19, 2020, at 8.) In this regard, the 

WCJ further found that Claimant testified that, at the time of the work injury, 

“Claimant bent over for the retrieval of a saw from a gang box and felt pain in the 

left side of his lower back on . . . May 1, 2017.”7 (WCJ’s Decision, May 11, 2018, 

at 4; WCJ’s Decision, February 19, 2020, at 5.) Consistent with the WCJ’s findings, 

Claimant testified that he “bent over to pick a porta band up out of a gang box and 

[he] felt pain in [his] lower back.” (C.R., Item No. 19, at 5.) Claimant specifically 

emphasized that he was “reaching in . . . to get a saw” out of the gang box, not

“lifting the gang box.” (Id. at 6.) Thus, insofar as there is a dispute regarding the 

WCJ’s finding that the mechanism of injury involved Claimant’s bending over as 

opposed to any lifting activity, we conclude that the WCJ’s finding is supported by 

the evidence of record, and we will not disturb her credibility determinations on 

appeal.

Additionally, we reject Claimant’s position that Dr. Valentino had a correct 

understanding of the mechanism of Claimant’s work-related injury. As noted by 

Claimant, and contrary to the credited testimony Claimant provided at the hearing 

before the WCJ, Dr. Valentino testified that the work injury occurred when Claimant 

“lifted a tool from a gang box and felt pain in the low back.” (R.R. at 8a.) Dr. 

Valentino also responded affirmatively when asked if Claimant’s “mechanism of 

injury, picking up a large or a heavy object, [is] consistent with” Claimant’s injury. 

7 The WCJ also describes Claimant’s mechanism of injury in accordance with Claimant’s 

testimony in other findings, including, pursuant to our reading, in finding of fact 15 itself. (WCJ’s 

Decision, February 19, 2020, at 9, Findings of Fact 15, 18.)
20

(Id. at 17a.) This testimony, particularly when viewed in the light of the WCJ’s 

supported findings regarding Claimant’s actual mechanism of injury, constitutes 

substantial evidence supporting the WCJ’s determination that Dr. Valentino did not 

have an accurate history of the mechanism of Claimant’s injury. As such, the record 

further supports the WCJ’s finding that Dr. Valentino was not credible in attributing 

Claimant’s herniation and radiculopathy to the work injury because Dr. Valentino

had an inaccurate history of the mechanism of the May 1, 2017 work-related injury.8 

We, therefore, reject Claimant’s challenge to finding of fact 15 as contrary to the 

evidence.

Next, Claimant challenges finding of fact 20, which provides:

Dr. Yucha is credible and persuasive about . . . Claimant’s recovery 

from the work injury by October 5, 2017[,] because Dr. Yucha’s 

clinical findings during his evaluation of . . . Claimant substantiated that 

and statements in the reviewed medical records by Dr. Yucha were 

indicative of a plethora of normal findings by other medical 

practitioners near the time of Dr. Valentino’s last evaluation of . . .

Claimant and in support of a recovery.

(Claimant’s Brief at 17 (emphasis in original) (quoting WCJ’s Decision, 

February 19, 2020, at 9.) Claimant contends that the WCJ’s determination that there 

was a “plethora of normal findings” regarding Claimant’s medical condition around 

the time that Dr. Valentino last treated Claimant is unsupported by the record. 

Observing that Dr. Valentino testified that he last physically examined Claimant on 

July 25, 2017, Claimant explains that Dr. Valentino noted that Dr. Ivill saw Claimant

on August 28, 2017, and recommended that Claimant undergo epidural injections. 

8 While Claimant points out that Dr. Yucha also identified the mechanism of Claimant’s 

injury as involving a lifting activity, we note that the WCJ did not base any of her credibility 

determinations regarding Dr. Yucha’s testimony on the accuracy of Dr. Yucha’s understanding of 

the mechanism of injury.
21

Claimant also relies upon the MRI taken three weeks after the work injury on 

May 22, 2017, which indicates the presence of a herniation.

In response, Employer argues that the WCJ’s use of the phrase “plethora of 

normal findings” did not constitute a finding as to Claimant’s condition around the 

time Dr. Valentino last treated Claimant. Rather, it was part of the WCJ’s reasoning 

as to why Dr. Yucha’s opinion of full recovery was credible. Employer further 

submits that Dr. Yucha’s physical examination, review of medical records, 

testimony, and IME report contain evidence of “normal findings” supporting his 

expert opinion that Claimant had fully recovered from his work-related lumbar 

sprain as of October 5, 2017.

Initially, we agree with Employer that the WCJ’s observation regarding the 

“plethora of normal findings” around Dr. Valentino’s last evaluation of Claimant did 

not constitute a determination or finding as to Claimant’s condition at that time and 

that, instead, it was a part of the WCJ’s reasoning as to why Dr. Yucha’s opinion of

Claimant’s full recovery as of October 5, 2017, was credible. Further, a review of 

the record reveals that there is evidence to support the WCJ’s determination that 

normal findings existed around the time of Dr. Valentino’s final examination of 

Claimant on July 25, 2017. Specifically, Dr. Yucha testified that Claimant’s 

physical therapy notes, particularly those from August 2017, revealed normal 

strength and sensation findings. (R.R. at 58a-59a.) While Claimant relies upon 

Dr. Ivill’s recommendation that Claimant undergo epidural injections as well as 

Claimant’s MRI results to refute the WCJ’s determination that there was a “plethora 

of normal findings” at the time of Dr. Valentino’s last evaluation of Claimant, we 

disagree that the existence of this contrary evidence renders the WCJ’s 

determination unsupported by substantial evidence. See Hoffmaster, 721 A.2d
22

at 1155. We also emphasize that, as fact-finder, the WCJ was entitled to weigh the 

evidence before her, and we will not reweigh that evidence on appeal. See Elk 

Mountain Ski Resort, Inc., 114 A.3d at 32 n.5. We, therefore, reject Claimant’s 

challenge in this regard.

Turning to Claimant’s argument that the WCJ’s decision is not well-reasoned, 

we observe that Section 422(a) of the Act9 provides, in pertinent part, that all parties 

in a workers’ compensation case 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 decision of a WCJ 

is “reasoned” if it allows for meaningful appellate review without further 

elucidation. Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 

828 A.2d 1043, 1052 (Pa. 2003). In order to satisfy this standard, a WCJ does not 

need to discuss every piece of the evidence in the record. Dorsey v. Workers’ Comp.

Appeal Bd. (Crossing Constr. Co.), 893 A.2d 191, 194 n.4 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2006), appeal denied, 916 A.2d 635 (Pa. 2007). Rather, Section 422(a) of 

the Act requires WCJs to issue reasoned decisions so that this Court does not have 

to “imagine” the reasons why a WCJ finds that the testimony of one witness was 

more credible than the testimony of another witness. Id. at 196. Thus, “[w]hen faced 

with conflicting evidence, the [WCJ] must adequately explain the reasons for 

rejecting or discrediting competent evidence.” Section 422(a) of the Act.

Additionally, under Section 422(a) of the Act, a WCJ must articulate the 

objective rationale underlying her credibility determinations where there is 

conflicting witness testimony. A WCJ may satisfy the reasoned decision

9

77 P.S. § 834.
23

requirement if she summarizes the witnesses’ testimony “and adequately explain[s]

[her] credibility determinations.” Clear Channel Broad. v. Workers’ Comp.

Appeal Bd. (Perry), 938 A.2d 1150, 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), appeal

denied, 951 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 2008). “Thus, while summaries of testimony alone 

would be insufficient to satisfy the reasoned decision requirement, where a WCJ 

summarizes testimony and also objectively explains [her] credibility determinations, 

the decision will satisfy the requirement.” Amandeo v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.

(Conagra Foods), 37 A.3d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). In addition, a WCJ cannot 

simply ignore uncontroverted evidence but, rather, must adequately explain the 

reasons why she has rejected such evidence. Section 422(a) of the Act.

Claimant argues that finding of fact 15 is illogical on its face, as it is unclear 

whether the WCJ meant that Dr. Valentino’s view was inconsistent with the actual 

mechanism of injury or that Claimant was in actuality not lifting a heavy object but 

was instead lifting a tool when he felt pain in his lower back on the date of the 

work-related injury. Employer counters that the WCJ’s finding provides adequate 

reasons explaining why she found Dr. Valentino’s testimony not to be credible:

(1) because Dr. Valentino testified that Claimant’s lifting activity with a large or 

heavy object was consistent with Claimant’s work-related injury; (2) because 

Claimant credibly testified that he bent over to retrieve a tool and felt pain in his 

lower back as the mechanism of the alleged work injury; and (3) because 

Dr. Valentino did not have an accurate history of the mechanism of the alleged work 

injury when he attributed Claimant’s diagnosed conditions to heavy lifting activities. 

Employer argues that, because the WCJ fully articulated the reasons for her findings 

based on the substantial credible evidence of record, her decision is reasoned as 

required by Section 422(a) of the Act.
24

Insofar as Claimant argues that the WCJ’s decision is not reasoned because

finding of fact 15 is “illogical,” we reject Claimant’s contention. While the WCJ’s 

finding is not a model of clarity, our reading of it reveals that the WCJ did not find 

Dr. Valentino’s opinion that Claimant’s herniation and radiculopathy were caused 

by the May 1, 2017 work-related injury to be credible because Dr. Valentino had an 

inaccurate history of the mechanism of Claimant’s injury, which involved a 

bending—as opposed to a lifting—activity. Because the WCJ provided an adequate 

explanation of her credibility determination as to Dr. Valentino’s opinions, Claimant 

is not entitled to relief on this basis.

Claimant also argues that the WCJ offered no explanation for why the MRI 

evidencing a disc herniation and impingement supported the finding that Claimant 

only sustained a lumbar strain during the May 1, 2017 work-related incident. Noting 

that the WCJ relied upon Claimant’s MRI in support of Dr. Valentino’s diagnoses 

of a lumbar strain, a herniation, and radiculopathy in her initial decision, Claimant 

asserts that the WCJ failed to mention the MRI results at all in her decision on 

remand. Claimant, thus, faults the WCJ for this “disconnect” between her findings 

regarding the MRI results in her 2018 and 2020 decisions. (Claimant’s Brief at 19.) 

Employer counters that, while Claimant seems to posit that the WCJ was required to 

mention the MRI in her findings and explain why the MRI supports a finding of a 

lumbar sprain, the WCJ considered that both Dr. Yucha and Dr. Valentino reviewed 

the MRI, which was one of a number of factors that each expert considered in 

rendering opinions as to causation. Employer also claims that the WCJ articulated 

verifiable reasons for her credibility determinations and that it is incumbent upon 

this Court to view the WCJ’s reasoning as a whole and not dissect and analyze each 

of the WCJ’s reasons for her credibility determinations.
25

Upon review, we conclude that Claimant is not entitled to relief based upon 

his argument concerning the WCJ’s treatment of the MRI. First, the WCJ is not 

required to address every piece of evidence in the record. See Dorsey, 893 A.2d 

at 194 n.4. Thus, insofar as the WCJ specifically addressed the MRI results in 

her 2018 decision but did not do so in her 2020 decision, we discern no error. 

Moreover, as discussed by the WCJ, both Dr. Valentino and Dr. Yucha considered

the MRI, among other things, in rendering their opinions as to causation as well as 

Claimant’s diagnoses and recovery in connection with the May 1, 2017 work-related

incident. (WCJ’s Decision, February 19, 2020, at 6-8.) The WCJ made extensive 

findings and provided thorough reasoning with respect to each expert’s credibility

on such matters. (See id. at 9-10.) The WCJ specifically found Dr. Valentino to be 

not credible with respect to his opinion—premised in part on the MRI—that 

Claimant’s herniation and radiculopathy were caused by the work incident because 

Dr. Valentino did not have an accurate history of the mechanism of Claimant’s 

injury. (Id. at 9.) Concluding that the WCJ’s decision is reasoned in this regard, we 

reject Claimant’s argument.

In sum, the WCJ reconciled the conflicting findings in her 2018 decision as 

they related to the exact description of Claimant’s work injuries and whether 

Claimant had fully recovered from all of the accepted injuries, as required by the 

Board’s remand order. While the WCJ may not have done so in a manner more 

favorable to Claimant, we conclude that Claimant is not entitled to relief on appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thomas Knowlton, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 618 C.D. 2021

:

Flemingtown Instrument Co. Inc. :

(Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2021, the order of the Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board, dated May 5, 2021, is hereby AFFIRMED.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge