IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David Glaser, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1205 C.D. 2017

: Submitted: January 5, 2018

Workers' Compensation Appeal :

Board (Department of Corrections), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge 

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: March 6, 2018

David Glaser (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the 

Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed an order of a Workers' 

Compensation Judge (WCJ), which, among other things, granted a termination 

petition filed by Claimant’s employer, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 

(Employer). Claimant contends the WCJ misinterpreted the testimony of his 

medical expert and therefore incorrectly attributed his current left knee condition 

solely to a prior military injury. Rather, Claimant asserts, his medical expert clearly 

testified that his current condition is a work-related aggravation of his previous 

military injury. Claimant further asserts that the WCJ erred in concluding Employer 

met its burden of proof in its termination petition that he fully recovered from his 

work injury. Therefore, Claimant argues the Board erred in affirming the WCJ’s 

decision. Upon review, we affirm.
2

I. Background

Claimant worked for Employer as a corrections officer at a state 

correctional institution. In March 2014, Claimant sustained an injury in the course 

of his employment while breaking up a fight between inmates. Employer issued a 

notice of compensation payable (NCP) listing a left knee injury described as a 

strain/tear. WCJ’s Op., 5/11/16, Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 1. The NCP noted 

Claimant twisted his left knee while breaking up an inmate fight. 

In April 2015, Employer filed a suspension petition alleging that as of 

March 5, 2015, it offered Claimant his pre-injury job at his pre-injury wage, and that 

Claimant declined the job offer. Employer also filed a termination petition based 

upon a medical expert’s opinion that Claimant fully recovered from his work injury 

as of February 16, 2015. In September 2015, Claimant filed a petition to review 

compensation benefits (review petition) seeking to expand the NCP’s description of 

the injury to include traumatic chondromalacia of the lateral tibial plateau.

In support of its suspension and termination petitions, Employer 

submitted the deposition testimony of Dr. David Cooper (IME Physician), a 

physician board certified in orthopedic surgery. F.F. No. 2. IME Physician 

examined Claimant on February 16, 2015. Id. The doctor took Claimant’s history, 

which included a military service connected left knee injury. Id. That injury 

required surgery on the left knee for a lateral tibial plateau fracture. Id. 

Claimant also provided IME Physician a history of the work incident. 

Id. He indicated the twisting injury did not hurt him right away but later became a 
3

problem. Id. Claimant underwent surgery by his treating physician, Dr. Raymond 

E. Dahl (Claimant’s Physician), a board certified orthopedic surgeon. A couple of 

months later, Claimant underwent another surgery, which showed arthritis. Id. 

Claimant indicated he could still perform most of his activities, but he encountered 

problems with squatting, kneeling and heavy lifting. Id.

IME Physician’s examination revealed no swelling of Claimant’s left 

knee, but his left calf was slightly smaller. F.F. No. 3. Claimant had some cog wheel 

motion of his left knee, but performed normal range of motion. Id. IME Physician 

noted Claimant did show signs of symptom magnification when he lightly stressed 

Claimant’s knee and Claimant said it hurt. Id. IME Physician also observed a little 

crepitation consistent with some arthritis, but no laxity. Id. All tests were negative 

for residual meniscal tearing. Id. The Lachman, drawer, pivot shift and jerk tests 

were also negative. Id. IME Physician noted that objectively, any anterior meniscal 

tear resolved. Id. In addition, IME Physician found no evidence of reflex 

sympathetic dystrophy. Id. 

IME Physician also reviewed Claimant’s medical reports and 

diagnostic studies, including the arthroscopy pictures of Claimant’s last surgery in 

September 2014. F.F. No. 4. These records definitively revealed a twisting injury 

at work, which IME Physician found compatible with a sprain or strain, and capable 

of tearing a meniscus. Id. Further, IME Physician reviewed an MRI that showed a 

suspicion of an anterior medial meniscal tear. Id. The doctor noted that Claimant’s 

Physician agreed and removed the tear. Id. In addition, IME Physician reviewed a 
4

second operative report, which showed some arthritis, but no residual meniscal tear. 

Id.

IME Physician also described and explained Claimant’s military injury, 

which consisted of a lateral tibial fracture. F.F. No 5. IME Physician believed that 

Claimant’s symptoms were consistent with that injury. Id. Therefore, IME 

Physician diagnosed Claimant’s work injury as sprain of the left knee and anterior 

horn medial meniscal tear. Id.

IME Physician opined that Claimant fully recovered from his work 

injuries based on the clinical exam, which was normal and showed no residual 

evidence of any soft tissue injury or meniscal tear. F.F. No. 6. The doctor further 

opined that the arthritis Claimant suffered could not be related to the work injury 

because there is no evidence that a soft tissue injury would cause, aggravate, or 

accelerate any preexisting arthritis in the knee. Id.

The WCJ further noted that IME Physician reviewed Claimant’s 

Physician’s medical records, including a September 2014 report to the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA). F.F. No. 7. The report indicated that Claimant’s Physician 

believed with 100% certainty that Claimant’s chondromalacia and arthritis of the 

lateral compartment of the knee were causally related to his military tibial plateau 

fracture. Id. The WCJ found IME Physician’s testimony to be credible because it 

was clear, concise, logical, internally consistent, and consistent with Claimant’s 

Physician’s report to the VA. Id.
5

Claimant testified on his own behalf and submitted the deposition of 

his Physician. Claimant testified that while employed as a correctional officer he 

sustained an injury in March 2014 while breaking up a fight between inmates. F.F. 

No. 8. Claimant is a member of a special team at the prison, which is similar to a 

police SWAT team. Id. The team members, who must pass a physical fitness test, 

have special gear and handle such duties as cell extractions. Id. 

Claimant acknowledged he sustained a prior injury to his left knee in 

2003 while serving in the Army. Id. He last treated for the Army injury in 2004. 

Id. 

Claimant further testified he underwent surgeries by his Physician in 

April and September of 2014. Id. Although Claimant’s Physician ultimately 

released him to sedentary light duty, Employer did not offer Claimant such a 

position. Id. Claimant further testified that his ongoing knee injury prevents him 

from being able to defend himself from others in the event of an inmate attack. Id.

Claimant’s Physician testified he treated Claimant 14 times since 

March 2014. F.F. No. 9. He initially diagnosed Claimant’s work injury as a “left 

knee sprain/strain, rule out derangement.” Id. Thereafter, Claimant’s Physician

reviewed an MRI, which showed a tear involving the anterior horn and body of 

Claimant’s medial meniscus, and chondromalacia of the patella of the left knee. F.F. 

No. 10. In April 2014, Physician performed a left knee arthroscopy, at which time 

he resected the anterior horn and body portion of the medial meniscus. Id.
6

Claimant’s Physician later requested another MRI, and he performed a 

second surgery in September 2014. Id. While performing the chondroplasty, the 

doctor observed some cracking, softening, and thinning of the articular cartilage 

involving the lateral tibial plateau, and trochlea of the femur. Id. Claimant’s 

Physician also debrided (smoothed out) the chondroplasty. Id. In addition, the 

doctor gave Claimant cortisone injections and viscosupplementation, which is a gel 

in the knee to help with pain and stiffness. Id. On the date of Claimant’s last visit 

in May 2015, the doctor diagnosed Claimant’s condition as “status post left knee 

arthroscopy with chondroplasty, moderate tibial plateau, trochlea of the femur and 

partial meniscectomy, anterior horn.” Id.

Claimant’s Physician opined that Claimant did not fully recover from 

his work injury. Id. Further, Claimant’s Physician opined that Claimant’s work 

injury aggravated his preexisting arthritis related to his 2003 Army injury. Id. In 

addition, the doctor agreed that Claimant could only perform sedentary work. Id. 

Finally, the WCJ noted that Claimant’s Physician acknowledged his 

September 2014 report to the VA, wherein the doctor indicated that Claimant’s 

arthritic changes were the result of his service-connected disability. F.F. No. 11. 

Claimant’s Physician explained that when someone suffers a tibial plateau fracture, 

the likelihood of developing arthritis is 100%. Id.

Ultimately, the WCJ found Claimant’s Physician’s testimony not 

credible because it contradicted IME Physician’s persuasive testimony and 

Claimant’s Physician’s 2014 report to the VA. Id.
7

In sum, the WCJ found IME Physician’s opinion credible that Claimant 

sustained work-related injuries in the nature of a left knee sprain and an anterior horn 

medial meniscal tear. F.F. No. 6. IME Physician also opined that Claimant’s 

arthritis was not causally related to his work injury “because there is no evidence 

that [a] soft tissue injury would cause, aggravate, or accelerate any preexisting 

arthritis in the knee.” Id. (emphasis added).

The WCJ further found IME Physician’s opinions consistent with 

Claimant’s Physician’s September 2014 report to the VA, wherein he stated he felt 

with 100% certainty that Claimant’s chondromalacia and arthritis of the left knee 

were related to his military tibial plateau fracture. F.F. No. 7. To that end, the WCJ 

rejected Claimant’s Physician’s opinion that Claimant’s work injury aggravated his 

preexisting arthritis. F.F. Nos. 10, 11.

Consequently, the WCJ determined that Employer “sustained its 

burden of proving by substantial, competent and credible evidence” that Claimant 

“fully recovered from his work related injury as of February 16, 2015.” WCJ’s Op., 

Conclusion of Law (C.L.) No. 3.

1

 Therefore, the WCJ granted Employer’s 

termination petition effective February 16, 2015, the date of IME Physician’s 

examination.

 

1 However, the WCJ denied Employer’s suspension petition on the basis that Employer 

failed to establish it offered Claimant a specific position and that he refused it. Conclusion of Law 

(C.L.) No. 2. The WCJ also granted Claimant’s review petition and amended the NCP to include 

an anterior horn meniscal tear. C.L. No. 4. Although Employer initially appealed the amendment 

to the NCP, it later withdrew its appeal. Therefore, neither the suspension petition nor the review 

petition are it issue in this appeal. 
8

On appeal, the Board affirmed. In its decision, the Board reasoned:

Claimant ... contends the WCJ ‘unreasonably 

interpreted’ the evidence by incorrectly concluding that 

[Claimant’s Physician] attributed Claimant’s current 

condition only to his prior military injury when he 

explained in his testimony that he felt Claimant sustained 

a work-related aggravation of pre-existing arthritis caused 

by the military injury. We understand Claimant’s 

argument that rather than rendering inconsistent opinions, 

[Claimant’s Physician] stated in his 2014 letter that the 

chondromalacia and arthritis is related to the military 

injury, and stated in his 2015 deposition testimony that 

[he] believed the chondromalacia and arthritis, related to 

the military injury, was aggravated by the work incident. 

Our review of the [d]ecision reveals that the WCJ, in fact, 

summarized [Claimant’s Physician’s] opinion as 

presented in his deposition testimony. The WCJ, however, 

chose to accept [IME Physician’s] testimony that the work 

injury did not aggravate Claimant’s pre-existing arthritis 

for the reasons [IME Physician] articulated, also finding 

that his opinion (that Claimant’s chondromalacia and 

arthritis involving the lateral compartment of the left knee 

was related to his fracture while in the military), was 

compatible with the opinion [Claimant’s Physician] 

expressed in his correspondence. This determination is 

consistent with the evidence of record. Further, rendering 

credibility determinations is the quintessential function of 

the fact-finder, Kasper v. [Workers’ Compensation 

Appeal Board] (Perloff Brothers, Inc.), 769 A.2d 1243 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2001), and in reviewing credibility 

determinations, substantial deference is due. Casne v. 

[Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.] (STAT Couriers, Inc.), 962 

A.2d 14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). We see no reversible error.

 

Bd. Op., 8/1/2017, at 7. Claimant petitions for review.

II. Issues
9

On appeal,2 Claimant contends the WCJ unreasonably misinterpreted 

the testimony of Claimant’s Physician and therefore incorrectly attributed his current 

left knee condition solely to a prior military injury, when, in fact, Claimant’s 

Physician made it clear that Claimant’s current condition resulted from a workrelated aggravation of his previous military injury. Thus, Claimant asserts the Board 

erred in affirming the WCJ’s decision where his credibility determinations were not 

supported by substantial evidence. Relatedly, Claimant argues the WCJ erred in 

concluding Employer met its burden in its termination petition of showing that 

Claimant fully recovered from his work injury.

III. Discussion

A. Credibility Determinations 

1. Argument

Claimant contends the WCJ erred by misinterpreting Claimant’s 

Physician’s testimony. Claimant asserts his Physician testified that the 2014 work 

injury aggravated an arthritic condition in his left knee, which his doctor in a 

previous report to the VA causally related to a 2003 tibial plateau fracture Claimant 

suffered while in the Army. Therefore, Claimant maintains, because the record does 

not support the WCJ’s credibility findings, the Board erred in affirming the WCJ’s 

decision.

Citing Casne, Claimant asserts the WCJ’s credibility determinations 

must be supported by substantial evidence. A reviewing court must view the WCJ’s 

 

2 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. Phoenixville Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Shoap), 81 A.3d 830 (Pa. 

2013).
10

reasoning as a whole and may overturn a credibility determination if it is arbitrary 

or capricious, or is so fundamentally dependent upon a misapprehension of material 

facts, or is so otherwise flawed, as to render it irrational. Id. 

Claimant argues that his Physician’s September 2014 report to the VA

and his deposition testimony in the present case are in complete harmony. Claimant 

asserts the report indicated the arthritis in his left knee was causally related to his 

military injury. However, Claimant’s Physician did not say that the military injury 

was the sole cause of Claimant’s current arthritic condition. Rather, it was the workrelated aggravation of Claimant’s pre-existing condition that directly caused 

Claimant’s current disability.

As Claimant’s Physician pointed out, Claimant functioned well as a 

corrections officer and did not have knee problems prior to his March 2014 work 

injury. He could run and participate in activities of daily living without difficulty in 

regard to his left knee. After his work injury, he began having problems.

In sum, Claimant’s Physician made it clear that Claimant’s work injury 

aggravated his underlying military injury to the point that Claimant could no longer 

function as a full-duty corrections officer. Claimant cites Section 301 of the 

Workers’ Compensation Act3(Act), which defines injury in relevant part as “an 

injury to an employee, regardless of his previous physical condition ....” Because 

Claimant’s Physician opined that the work injury aggravated Claimant’s pre-existing 

arthritic condition, Claimant argues the WCJ erred in characterizing the doctor’s 

 

3 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §411(1).
11

testimony as inconsistent with his 2014 report to the VA. See F.F. No. 11. Claimant 

therefore contends the WCJ’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by 

substantial evidence. Therefore, Claimant maintains, the WCJ’s credibility finding 

must be overturned. Casne. 

2. Analysis

We recognize that the WCJ, as the ultimate fact-finder in workers’

compensation cases, has exclusive province over questions of credibility and 

evidentiary weight. A & J Builders, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Verdi), 78 

A.3d 1233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). The WCJ may accept or reject the testimony of a 

witness, including an expert witness, in whole or in part. Id. “Credibility 

determinations are more than a series of individual findings.” Casne, 962 A.2d at 

19. “Rather, they represent the evaluation of a total package of testimony in the 

context of the record as a whole, and reflect subtle nuances of reasoning that may 

not be fully articulated, nor even fully appreciated, by the fact-finder.” Id.

In Findings of Fact Nos. 6 and 7, the WCJ stated (with emphasis added):

6. [IME Physician] was of the opinion that Claimant was 

fully recovered from the work related injuries, because the 

clinical exam was normal showing no residual evidence of 

any soft tissue injury or meniscal tear. [IME Physician] 

was also of the opinion that the arthritis from which ... 

Claimant suffered was not related to the work related 

injury, because there is no evidence that [a] soft tissue 

injury would cause, aggravate, or accelerate any 

preexisting arthritis in the knee.

7. [IME Physician] had an opportunity to review records 

from [Claimant’s Physician] subsequent to the IME. 

These records included [Claimant’s Physician’s] report to 
12

the [VA] dated September 25, 2014. This report indicated 

that [Claimant’s Physician] felt with 100% certainty that 

the chondromalacia and arthritis of the lateral 

compartment of the knee was related to his military tibial 

plateau fracture. [IME Physician’s] testimony is found to 

be credible because it is clear, concise, logical and 

internally consistent and consistent with the report of 

[Claimant’s Physician] to the [VA].

F.F. Nos. 6, 7.

IME Physician’s testimony supports the WCJ’s findings. In a July 2015 

deposition, IME Physician testified there is “no evidence that a soft tissue injury

would cause, aggravate, or accelerate any preexisting arthritis in [Claimant’s] knee. 

So my opinion would be his arthritis would not be related to any work injury.” 

Supplemental Certified Record (Supp. C.R.), Dep. of David Cooper, M.D. (Cooper 

Dep.), 7/13/15, at 15. In a November 2015 deposition, IME Physician further 

testified: “Arthritis – there’s no scientific or statistical evidence showing that any 

underlying arthritis in the knee is changed by any soft tissue injury.” Supp. C.R., 

Cooper Dep., 11/17/15, at 7. IME Physician further testified that there was no 

evidence of any arthritis on the inside of the knee where the meniscal tear occurred. 

Id.

Reviewing the WCJ’s credibility determinations as a whole, we believe 

it is clear that the WCJ accepted as credible IME Physician’s testimony that 

Claimant’s work injury consisted of a soft tissue injury in the nature of a knee 

sprain/strain and an anterior medial meniscal tear. See F.F. Nos. 3-7. This includes 

IME’s Physician’s testimony and opinion that a soft tissue injury would not 

aggravate or accelerate Claimant’s preexisting arthritis in his left knee. F.F. No. 6.
13

What is more, the WCJ found Claimant’s Physician’s testimony 

“incredible because it is contrary to the credible and persuasive testimony of [IME 

Physician] as well as [Claimant’s Physician’s] report to the [VA].” F.F. No. 11 

(emphasis added). Simply stated, the WCJ rejected Claimant’s Physician’s opinion 

because it contradicted that of IME Physician.

Where medical experts testify by deposition, a WCJ’s resolution of 

conflicting evidence must be supported by more than a statement that one expert is 

deemed more credible than another. Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. 

(Tristate Transp.), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003); Dorsey v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal 

Bd. (Crossing Constr. Co.), 893 A.2d 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). The WCJ must 

articulate an actual objective basis for the credibility determination for the decision 

to be “reasoned.” Daniels; Dorsey. As the Supreme Court explained:

[T]here are countless objective factors which may support 

the decision to accept certain evidence while ‘rejecting or 

discrediting competent [conflicting] evidence.’ For 

example, an expert witness’s opinion may be based upon 

erroneous factual assumptions ... or an expert may have 

had less interaction with the subject ... or the interaction 

was in a less timely fashion ... or the expert may betray a 

bias or interest in the matter. .... In addition, an expert 

witness may be unqualified or less qualified than the 

opposing party’s expert; or may be impeached with 

inconsistencies or contradictions in his or her testimony or 

reports; or may be impeached in some other convincing 

fashion.

Daniels, 828 A.2d at 1053 (citations omitted).
14

Here, the WCJ found IME Physician’s testimony to be “credible 

because it is clear, concise, logical and internally consistent and consistent with the 

report of [Claimant’s Physician] to the [VA].” F.F. No. 7 (emphasis added). Thus, 

even though Claimant’s Physician opined that Claimant’s work injury aggravated 

his preexisting arthritis, F.F. No. 10, the WCJ accepted IME Physician’s opinion to 

the contrary as persuasive. F.F. No. 11. Moreover, IME Physician’s testimony 

remained consistent with Claimant’s Physician’s report to the VA, which related 

Claimant’s arthritis to his military injury. F.F. No. 7. In short, the WCJ’s credibility 

determinations were based on objective findings, which in turn, were supported by 

substantial evidence. Therefore, we reject Claimant’s contention that the WCJ’s 

credibility determinations regarding the medical evidence must be overturned. 

Daniels; Casne; Dorsey.

B. Termination Petition

1. Argument

Claimant also contends the WCJ erred in granting Employer’s 

termination petition where Employer failed to meet its burden of proving Claimant 

fully recovered from his work injury. Claimant asserts his Physician’s testimony 

made it clear that his current symptoms and related disability are the result of a workrelated aggravation of a non-symptomatic preexisting condition.

2. Analysis

It is irrelevant whether the record contains evidence to support findings 

other than those made by the WCJ; the critical inquiry is whether there is evidence 
15

to support the findings actually made. Furnari v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. 

(Temple Inland), 90 A.3d 53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). We examine the record in its 

entirety to see if it contains evidence a reasonable person would find sufficient to 

support the WCJ’s findings. Id. If the record contains such evidence, the WCJ’s 

findings must be upheld. Id. In addition, we must view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prevailing party and give that party the benefit of all inferences 

reasonably deducible from the evidence. Id. 

Here, IME Physician diagnosed Claimant’s work-related injury as a 

sprain of the left knee and an anterior horn medial meniscal tear. F.F. No. 5; Cooper 

Dep., 7/13/15, at 14. As discussed above, IME Physician opined Claimant fully 

recovered from his work injury as of the date of his February 2015 evaluation 

because his clinical exam was normal and showed no residual evidence of any soft 

tissue injury or meniscal tear. F.F. No. 6; Cooper Dep., 7/13/15, at 14.

In a termination petition, the employer bears the burden of showing

either that the claimant’s disability ceased, or that any current disability arises from 

a cause unrelated to the work injury. Campbell v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. 

(Antietam Valley Animal Hosp.), 705 A.2d 503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). Here, the WCJ 

accepted IME Physician’s opinion that Claimant fully recovered from his workrelated injuries, which included a sprain of the left knee and an anterior horn medial 

meniscal tear. IME Physician opined that the arthritis in Claimant’s left knee, and 

any work restrictions related to his arthritic condition, were not causally related to 

his March 2014 work injury. F.F. Nos. 5-7. These findings are supported by 
16

substantial evidence. See Cooper Dep., 7/13/15, at 14-15; Cooper Dep., 11/17/15, 

at 7-8.

For these reasons, we discern no error in the Board’s decision affirming 

the WCJ’s order. Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David Glaser, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1205 C.D. 2017

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal :

Board (Department of Corrections), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6

th day of March, 2018, for the reasons stated in the 

foregoing opinion, the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is 

AFFIRMED.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge