IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kathy Wall, : 

:

Petitioner :

: 

v. : No. 1573 C.D. 2017

: Submitted: February 9, 2018

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Commonwealth of :

Pennsylvania), :

:

Respondent : 

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: May 31, 2018

Kathy Wall (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the decision and order of a Workers’ 

Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCJ granted in part and denied in part Claimant’s 

petition to review compensation benefits (Review Petition) and granted the petition 

to terminate compensation benefits (Termination Petition) filed by Claimant’s 

employer, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Employer). For the reasons stated 

below, we affirm. 

Claimant was employed as a Liquor Store Clerk I in a store run by the 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. (WCJ Decision Finding of Fact (F.F.) ¶3.) 
2

Prior to the incident at issue in this case, Claimant had for years sought medical 

treatment for neck and back problems, most recently following an October 2014 

work injury. (Id. F.F. ¶4(b).) Following a March 2015 independent medical 

examination (IME) report, a doctor opined that Claimant had fully recovered from 

this work injury, an opinion with which Claimant was in agreement. (Id. F.F. ¶¶4(b), 

11.) On April 11, 2015, Claimant sustained the work-related injury at issue in the 

current case when a cart that she was pushing toward a dumpster outside the store

fell over as a result of a wind gust and knocked her over and against the cart. (Id.

F.F. ¶¶3, 4(a).) On May 8, 2015, Employer recognized an injury to Claimant’s left 

ankle, right knee and bilateral hand contusions through a medical-only notice of 

compensation payable (NCP) but denied that Claimant suffered any wage loss. (Id.

F.F. ¶3.) 

Claimant filed the Review Petition on July 9, 2015 asserting that the 

description of the work injury in the May 8, 2015 NCP was incorrect and requesting 

that her injury be amended to include lumbar strain and sprain, aggravation of 

degenerative disc disease in lumbar spine and lumbar disc injury. (Reproduced 

Record (R.R.) 13a.) At an August 13, 2015 hearing, Claimant orally amended the 

Review Petition to also include cervical strain and sprain and aggravation of 

degenerative disc disease in cervical spine in her revised list of injuries. (WCJ 

Decision F.F. ¶1.) In January 2016, the parties stipulated that Claimant became 

partially disabled on April 12, 2015 and was entitled to partial disability benefits as 

of that date and that Claimant became totally disabled on October 8, 2015 and was 

entitled to temporary total disability benefits as of that date. (Id. F.F. ¶3.) The parties 

further stipulated that the description of Claimant’s injury and whether benefits 

would continue or be stopped would remain open for decision by the WCJ. (Id.) 
3

Employer filed the Termination Petition on March 15, 2016 asserting 

that Claimant had fully recovered from the work injury as of October 26, 2015. (R.R. 

17a.) Claimant returned to part-time work on March 22, 2016, and her benefits 

converted to partial disability benefits. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶¶3, 6.) The Review 

Petition and Termination Petition were consolidated before the WCJ. Claimant 

testified before the WCJ and also presented the deposition testimony of Mark Avart, 

D.O., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who was Claimant’s treating physician. 

Employer presented the deposition testimony of Amir Fayyazi, M.D., a boardcertified orthopedic surgeon who performed an IME of Claimant. 

On September 26, 2016, the WCJ issued a decision granting the Review 

Petition in part, concluding that Claimant had met her burden of showing that she 

suffered the additional injuries not recognized in the May 8, 2015 NCP of a cervical 

strain and sprain, a lumbar strain and sprain and transient exacerbation of symptoms 

from cervical and lumbar spine degenerative disc disease. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶17, 

Conclusion of Law (C.L.) ¶2, Order.) The WCJ also granted the Termination 

Petition, concluding that Employer had demonstrated that Claimant was fully 

recovered from the April 11, 2015 work injuries as of October 26, 2015, the date of 

Dr. Fayyazi’s IME. (Id. F.F. ¶18, C.L. ¶3, Order.) In making these determinations, 

the WCJ found Claimant’s testimony credible that she suffered a cervical strain and 

sprain and a lumbar strain and sprain, but not credible that she continued to suffer 

from symptoms from this work-related soft tissue injury rather than from a preexisting degenerative spinal condition resulting from age, documented pre-injury 

cervical and lumbar spine degeneration and previous injuries. (Id. F.F. ¶¶15-16.) 

The WCJ also found Dr. Fayyazi’s testimony to be more credible and persuasive 

than Dr. Avart’s testimony, except to the extent that Dr. Fayyazi opined that 

Claimant did not suffer a lumbar strain and sprain. (Id. F.F. ¶16.) Claimant appealed 
4

the determinations of the WCJ that she did not suffer a material aggravation of her 

lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease on April 11, 2015 and that she had

fully recovered from her work injury by October 26, 2015. The Board affirmed, 

concluding that there was substantial, competent evidence supporting both of these 

decisions. 

On appeal to this Court,1 Claimant argues that the Board erroneously 

affirmed the partial denial of her Review Petition and the grant of Employer’s 

Termination Petition because the WCJ improperly credited the opinion of Dr. 

Fayyazi over that of Dr. Avart. Claimant asserts that, while she is not seeking that 

this Court disturb the WCJ’s credibility determinations, our caselaw requires that in 

workers’ compensation cases, the opinion of a treating doctor, so long as it is 

reasonable and supported by medical evidence, should be credited over the opinion 

of an expert retained for an IME. Claimant points out that in this case, Dr. Avart 

began treating Claimant in August 2015 and continued to treat her through the date 

of his deposition, while Dr. Fayyazi was retained by Employer for the sole purpose 

of conducting an IME and he examined Claimant on only one occasion. Claimant 

further argues that this Court should take note of the fact that Dr. Fayyazi maintains 

a robust and lucrative practice as an employer expert in workers’ compensation 

cases. Claimant argues that, properly giving the testimony of Dr. Avart credit over 

the testimony of Dr. Fayyazi, the evidence supports a finding that Claimant’s April 

11, 2015 work injury constituted an aggravation of degenerative disc disease in the 

 

1 This Court’s review of an appeal from a determination by the Board is limited to determining 

whether an error of law was committed, whether the WCJ’s necessary findings of fact are 

supported by substantial evidence and whether Board procedures or constitutional rights were 

violated. Gahring v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (R and R Builders), 128 A.3d 375, 

379 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 
5

lumbar spine and lumbar disc injury and that Claimant had not fully recovered from 

the work injury by October 26, 2015.

Section 413(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act)2authorizes a 

WCJ to amend an NCP where it is shown that the notice “was in any material respect 

incorrect.” 77 P.S. § 771. Claimant, as the party seeking the correction of the 

description of the injury on the NCP, bore the burden to prove a material mistake of 

fact or law was made at the time the notice was issued. Cinram Manufacturing, Inc. 

v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hill), 975 A.2d 577, 582 (Pa. 2009); 

Anderson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Hospital), 830 

A.2d 636, 641 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). To succeed in a termination petition, an 

employer has the burden of proving either that the claimant’s disability has ceased 

or that any current disability is unrelated to the work injury. Hall v. Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board (America Service Group), 3 A.3d 734, 740 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2010); Gillyard v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania 

Liquor Control Board), 865 A.2d 991, 995 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (en banc). An 

employer may satisfy this burden by presenting unequivocal, competent medical 

evidence showing the claimant’s full recovery from the work-related injuries. Hall, 

3 A.3d at 740; Gillyard, 865 A.2d at 995.

In workers’ compensation matters, the WCJ is the ultimate finder of 

fact and the exclusive arbiter of credibility and witness weight. Daniels v. Workers’ 

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

The findings of the WCJ are conclusive on appeal, so long as they are supported by 

substantial evidence. O’Donnell v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (United 

Parcel Service), 831 A.2d 784, 789 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). The WCJ may accept or 

 

2 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.1, 2501-2708.
6

reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part, including medical witnesses. 

Furnari v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Temple Inland), 90 A.3d 53, 70 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2014); Stalworth v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (County of 

Delaware), 815 A.2d 23, 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Determinations of witness 

credibility and evidentiary weight are not subject to appellate review except where 

made arbitrarily and capriciously. Casne v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board 

(STAT Couriers, Inc.), 962 A.2d 14, 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); Dorsey v. Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board (Crossing Construction Co.), 893 A.2d 191, 195 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2006). 

In his deposition, Dr. Avart testified that he began treating Claimant on 

August 6, 2015, and he continued treating her through the date of his deposition. 

(Avart Deposition at 8, 14, R.R. 85a, 91a.) Dr. Avart testified that MRIs performed 

on her cervical spine and her lumbar spine in June and September 2015 showed that 

she had a strain and sprain of her neck and back, aggravation and exacerbation of 

pre-existing asymptomatic arthritis, moderate stenosis and degenerative disc 

disease. (Id. at 9-12, 14-16, R.R. 86a-89a, 91a-93a.) Dr. Avart ordered an EMG of 

Claimant’s cervical spine, which was negative for acute cervical radiculopathy. (Id.

at 16, R.R. 93a.) Dr. Avart’s treatment of Claimant consisted of home physical 

therapy exercises and medication, including oxycodone for pain and Ambien to help 

her sleep when she is in pain. (Id. at 13-14, 16-17, 24, R.R. 90a-91a, 93a-94a, 101a.) 

Dr. Avart also placed Claimant on light-duty restrictions including limiting her to 4-

hour shifts and lifting less than 10 pounds. (Id. at 13, 17, R.R. 90a, 94a.) Dr. Avart 

stated that Claimant was not able to return to work and perform her pre-injury job. 

(Id. at 19, R.R. 96a.)

Dr. Fayyazi testified that his October 26, 2015 physical examination of 

Claimant showed no physiological signs of injury and that his examination of her 
7

lumbar and cervical spine was unremarkable. (Fayyazi Deposition at 16-18, R.R. 

119a-20a.) Dr. Fayyazi stated that Claimant showed better-than-average-for-herage range of motion for lumbar spine and close-to-full range of motion in her 

cervical spine with a complaint of discomfort at the base of her neck. (Id. at 15-17, 

R.R. 119a.) Dr. Fayyazi stated that based on his physical examination, the history 

Claimant provided and his review of medical records, he diagnosed Claimant with

multi-level cervical degenerative disc disease that was pre-existing and not 

associated with a traumatic injury. (Id. at 20, R.R. 120a.) Dr. Fayyazi testified that 

Claimant had suffered a cervical strain and sprain as a result of the April 11, 2015 

work incident, but that she was fully recovered. (Id. at 20, 23, R.R. 120a-21a.) Dr. 

Fayyazi testified that Claimant demonstrated a pre-existing degenerative condition 

of the lumbar spine in the June 2015 MRI study, but that there was no indication that 

she suffered a lumbar strain and sprain on April 11, 2015. (Id. at 21, R.R. 120a.) 

Dr. Fayyazi based his opinion that Claimant had not suffered a lumbar strain and 

sprain in large part on the fact that she did not report a lumbar strain and sprain after 

the injury and that no MRI of the lumbar spine was ordered until five months after 

the incident. (Id.) Dr. Fayyazi stated, however, that even if she did suffer a lumbar 

injury, she had recovered by the time of the IME, noting that his examination showed 

her range of motion to be almost as good as a teenager and that she had no pain or 

muscle spasms. (Id.) Dr. Fayyazi concurred with the accepted injuries of left ankle, 

right knee and bilateral hand contusions and he opined that she had fully recovered 

from these injuries. (Id. at 22, R.R. 121a.) Dr. Fayyazi concluded that Claimant was 

not required to be on work restrictions. (Id. at 23, R.R. 121a.) 

In the decision, the WCJ found that Dr. Avart’s testimony was 

competent but not as credible or persuasive as Dr. Fayyazi’s testimony concerning 

the nature of Claimant’s injury and his opinion that Claimant’s disability ended on 
8

or before October 26, 2015. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶16.) The WCJ explained the 

credibility determination in favor of Dr. Fayyazi as follows:

I find the testimony of Dr. Avart competent, but less 

credible than the competent, credible, and more persuasive 

testimony of Dr. Fayyazi. I have some concern that Dr. 

Avart continues to prescribe narcotic medication more 

than a year after a soft tissue injury. There is no diagnostic 

evidence of anything more than that. In fact, the possible 

cervical radiculopathy was ruled out by the EMG. 

Claimant has made no complaints of lumbar 

radiculopathy, so it is unlikely that an EMG, if performed, 

would reveal any such conditions. While Claimant’s 

preexisting conditions became symptomatic, there were 

no anatomic changes as shown by several diagnostic 

studies. Aggravation requires a material change of 

condition; [Dr.] Avart conceded there was no physiologic 

change. Disabling exacerbation of symptoms is 

compensable, but only so long as the incident is the cause 

of those symptoms. Here, I find that Claimant’s 

continuing complaints more than a year later are not 

related to the work incident but are due to her preexisting

conditions advancing with age. In fact, Claimant’s 

relatively benign examination by Dr. Fayyazi with only 

subjective complaints does not support a finding of 

continuing injury.

(Id.) The WCJ noted that the only exception to the finding that Dr. Fayyazi’s opinion 

was entitled to more evidentiary weight than that of Dr. Avart related to the WCJ’s 

conclusion that Claimant suffered a lumbar strain and sprain during the April 11, 

2015 incident based on Claimant’s credible report of symptoms in her lower back 

and the accepted description of the mechanism of the injury. (Id. F.F. ¶¶15, 16.) 

While the WCJ credited Claimant’s description of her injury, the WCJ did not find 

credible her report that she continued to suffer from symptoms as a result of the soft 

tissue work injuries rather than her documented pre-existing cervical and lumbar 

spine degeneration. (Id. F.F. ¶15.)
9

Upon review, we reject Claimant’s challenge to the WCJ’s credibility 

determinations in favor of Employer’s IME expert, Dr. Fayyazi. The WCJ offered 

a detailed discussion of the testimony of the two medical experts and clearly set forth 

reasons for accepting the opinion of Dr. Fayyazi over Dr. Avart’s opinion, including 

the WCJ’s concern over Dr. Avart prescribing narcotic pain medication after a soft 

tissue injury and the inconsistency between the diagnostic studies and examination 

results and Dr. Avart’s diagnosis of Claimant’s injury. See Daniels, 828 A.2d at 

1053 (holding that where medical experts testify by deposition, a WCJ’s resolution 

of conflicting evidence must set forth an actual objective basis for the credibility 

determinations rather than a mere statement that one expert is more credible than the

other); see also Dorsey, 893 A.2d at 194-95. The WCJ’s credibility determinations 

were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious, and 

accordingly they may not be disturbed on appeal. 

Claimant’s request that we overturn the finding of greater credibility 

and persuasion in favor of Dr. Fayyazi in deference to the testimony of Claimant’s 

treating doctor, Dr. Avart, relies on a misapprehension of our precedent. This Court 

has consistently held that greater credence may be given to the testimony of a 

claimant’s treating physician as opposed to a physician who examines the claimant 

solely for litigation purposes. Sloane v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board

(Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia), 124 A.3d 778, 789 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); D.P. 

“Herk” Zimmerman, Jr., Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Himes), 

519 A.2d 1077, 1080 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). However, as this Court has also held, a 

WCJ is under no obligation to accept the opinion of the treating physician over the 

opinion of an IME expert retained by the employer. Jenkins v. Workmen’s 

Compensation Appeal Board (Woodville State Hospital), 677 A.2d 1288, 1293 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1996); Ashe v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Department of 
10

Labor & Industry), 648 A.2d 1306, 1307-08 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994); King v. Workmen’s 

Compensation Appeal Board (Wendell H. Stone Co.), 572 A.2d 845, 846 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Stonebraker v. Workmen’s 

Compensation Appeal Board (Seven Springs Farm, Inc.), 641 A.2d 655 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1994) (en banc); see also Mahaffey v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal 

Board (3B Pain Management Center, PC) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 206 C.D. 2017, filed 

August 8, 2017), slip op. at 6-7 (“[I]t does not follow from [the principle that greater 

credence may be given to the claimant’s treating physician rather than an IME 

expert] that because a medical expert may have examined a claimant and is offering 

testimony on behalf of a claimant that the medical expert’s opinion is automatically 

entitled to greater weight than the opinion offered by an employer’s expert.”).

3

 This 

Court has specifically rejected the adoption of a “treating physician’s rule” found in 

other jurisdictions that would give deference to the testimony of the treating 

physician based on the ongoing relationship between the physician and patient. 

Jenkins, 677 A.2d at 1293; Ashe, 648 A.2d at 1307-08; see also Goodman v. 

Department of Public Welfare, 695 A.2d 945, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). Thus, we 

may not disturb the WCJ’s findings in favor of Dr. Fayyazi on the basis of Dr. 

Avart’s more privileged relationship with Claimant as her treating physician. 

Furthermore, Claimant’s argument that Dr. Fayyazi’s opinion should 

be rejected because a substantial portion of his practice was devoted to IME 

examinations and depositions, largely on behalf of employers, is not meritorious. A 

perceived bias or interest in a matter is an appropriate basis for a WCJ to reject or 

discredit a medical expert’s testimony, Daniels, 828 A.2d at 1053, and Claimant 

elicited testimony at Dr. Fayyazi’s deposition that he conducts an average of 34 

 

3 Mahaffey is an unreported decision that is not binding precedent but instead is considered by the 

Court for its persuasive value. 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).
11

IMEs and 8 depositions per month, at a rate of $1,200 per IME and $3,000 per 

deposition, with 85 percent of the depositions on behalf of an employer or insurer 

and 15 percent on behalf of his patients. (Fayyazi Deposition at 7-8, R.R. 117a.) 

However, the issue of whether to account for Dr. Fayyazi’s substantial IME caseload 

in the analysis of Dr. Fayyazi’s credibility was for the WCJ alone to make. We may 

not superimpose our after-the-fact credibility determinations on the WCJ’s decision. 

Finally, Claimant challenges the competency of Dr. Fayyazi’s opinion 

that Claimant had fully recovered from her work injury, which served as the basis 

for the WCJ’s grant of the Termination Petition.

4

 Claimant argues that Dr. Fayyazi 

testified that Claimant did not suffer a lumbar injury on April 11, 2015, which 

Claimant asserts is contrary to the medical evidence of a lumbar injury and the 

WCJ’s finding that Claimant did suffer a lumbar strain and sprain. In workers’ 

compensation matters, a medical expert’s opinion is not competent to support a 

termination petition where the expert does not opine that the claimant has recovered 

from previously accepted or adjudicated work injuries. Hall, 3 A.3d at 740; 

Gillyard, 865 A.2d at 995. The expert’s opinion is competent, however, where the 

medical expert doubts that the established injury occurred but nevertheless presumes 

the presence of the debated injury for the purpose of providing an opinion that the 

claimant had fully recovered from the injury. Hall, 3 A.3d at 741; To v. Workers’

Compensation Appeal Board (Insaco, Inc.), 819 A.2d 1222, 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2003). While Dr. Fayyazi did testify that he did not believe that Claimant suffered

a lumbar strain and sprain, Dr. Fayyazi stated that even if Claimant did suffer that 

injury, the fact that she had regained close-to-full range of motion and had no pain 

 

4 The issue of whether a medical expert’s testimony is competent is a conclusion of law that is 

reviewable on appeal by this Court. Pryor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Colin Service 

Systems), 923 A.2d 1197, 1203 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
12

or spasms in the muscles of her lower back indicated to him that Claimant fully 

recovered from any lower back injury. (Id. at 20-21, R.R. 120a.) Dr. Fayyazi also 

did not ignore the work injury of left ankle, right knee and bilateral hand contusions 

that Employer accepted in the May 8, 2015 NCP and testified that Claimant had fully 

recovered from these injuries. (Id. at 22, R.R. 121a.) Dr. Fayyazi further opined 

that the medical records demonstrated that Claimant had clearly sustained a cervical 

strain and sprain during the April 11, 2015 incident but that Claimant had fully 

recovered by the time of his examination. (Id. at 20, 23, R.R. 120a, 121a.) Thus, 

the record demonstrates that Dr. Fayyazi fully accounted for the work injuries 

established at the time he offered his opinion and the additional injuries that were 

set forth in the September 26, 2016 WCJ decision under review.

Claimant further contendsthat the competency of Dr. Fayyazi’s opinion 

was undermined by the fact that Dr. Fayyazi acknowledged that Claimant had fully 

recovered from her prior October 2014 neck and back work injury by March 2015 

and that she was asymptomatic and capable of fulfilling her job duties prior to the 

April 11, 2015 work injury. Claimant asserts that it must logically follow that 

Claimant’s current condition is the result of the April 11, 2015 incident and Dr. 

Fayyazi’s opinion that Claimant’s symptoms are related only to pre-existing 

degenerative disc disease is unsound. Claimant does not accurately characterize Dr. 

Fayyazi’s testimony. Taken in its entirety, Dr. Fayyazi’s testimony does not support 

the conclusion that Claimant was completely free of any problems with her lumbar 

and cervical spine prior to the April 11, 2015 injury. Instead, Dr. Fayyazi testified 

that Claimant was suffering from pre-existing multi-level cervical and lumbar spine 

degenerative disc disease consistent with a person of her age at the time of that work 

injury. (Fayyazi Deposition at 20-21, 24, R.R. 120a-21a.) While Dr. Fayyazi 

emphasized that he was not asked to opine on Claimant’s condition prior to her 
13

injury, he stated that his review of Claimant’s medical records from an April 20, 

2015 visit to her family doctor indicatesthat Claimant was actively treating for lower 

back pain at the time of the incident. (Id. at 30, 36-38, R.R. 123a-25a.) Dr. Fayyazi 

testified that Claimant’s report to him that she was suffering from symptoms as of 

the date of the IME but was completely asymptomatic prior to April 11, 2015 was 

not supported by the medical records. (Id. at 36-40, R.R. 124a-25a.) Dr. Fayyazi 

opined that while Claimant did suffer an acute injury on April 11, 2015, his 

examination and review of the records showed no objective evidence of disability 

and that these injuries had resolved by the date of his examination on October 26, 

2015. (Id. at 20-23, 35-36, 40, R.R. 120a-21a, 124a-25a.) Dr. Fayyazi’s testimony, 

which the WCJ found to be credible and persuasive, was competent to support the 

WCJ’s conclusion of full recovery and provided substantial evidence to support the 

grant of the Termination Petition. 

Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.

__________ ___________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision in this case.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kathy Wall, : 

:

Petitioner :

: 

v. : No. 1573 C.D. 2017

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal :

Board (Commonwealth of :

Pennsylvania), :

:

Respondent : 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2018, the order of the Workers’ 

Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is AFFIRMED.

__________ ___________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge