IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Aziz Moumen , : : Petitioner :

: v. : No. 2608 C.D. 201 5
: Submitted : J u ly 8 , 201 6 Workers’ Compensation Appeal : Board ( Supreme Mid Atlantic : Trucking ) , : : Respondent :

BEF ORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON , Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK , Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: September 2, 201 6

Aziz Moumen (Claimant), pro se , p etition s for review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) t h at affirmed the decision and order of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) deny ing his c laim p etition

. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm

.

Claimant work ed for Su preme Mid Atlantic Trucking ( Employer ) as a chassis inspector from January 17, 2011 until June 17, 2011, when he was laid off, and was rehired by Employer to the same position on January 30, 2012 . (WCJ Decision Finding of Fact (F.F.) ¶ ¶ 18(a), 19(a) ; 10 / 3 / 12 Hearing Transcript (H.T.)

at 7

- 8, 10

- 12 .) Claimant’s duties as chassis inspector included light assembly work, visually inspecting truck chassis for damage, taking measurements, and installing loose accessories , such as mirrors and wheel covers, and re quired2

occasional lifting of up to 25 pounds

. ( WCJ Decision F.F. ¶ 18( b ); 2/27/13 H.T. at
28

- 29 .) After Claimant was rehired on January 30, 2012, his duties were expanded to include picking up trash and leaves when there was a lull in chassis inspection

w ork

. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶ 21(a), (c), (d); 2/27/13 H.T. at 29

- 30.)

Claimant had sustained an inguinal hernia while working for another company years before he was first hired by Employer. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶ 17(a);
10/3/12 H.T. at 29

- 30, 36

- 37 .) Claiman t also suffered from back pain prior to his work for Employer. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶ 17( c ) , (d) ; 10/3/12 H.T. at 11 , 41 .) In late February 2012, Claimant told Employer that he was having surgery in the near future. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶ 24(a), (e); 2/27/13 H.T. at 11

- 12.) On March 2, 2012, Claimant gave Employer a note from his family physician restricting him from lifting over 10 pounds and from repeated bending and twisting

. (WCJ
Decision F.F. ¶

¶ 25(b) , 26(a) ; 10/3/12 H.T. at 19

- 21 ; 2/27/13 H.T. at 13

- 14 ; Employer Ex. 3 .) The doctor ’ s note d id not state the medical condition for which the restrictions were imposed, and Claimant did not tell Employer that the doctor’s
restrictions or surgery were related to any work injury or that he had been injured

at w ork. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶¶ 2 2 ( c ) , (f) , 2 3 ( b ) , 24(f), 26(e), (f) ; 2/27/13 H.T. at
13

- 14 , 20, 32 ; Employer Ex. 3.) Employer told Claimant that he c ould not work until he was released from the restrictions and sent Claimant home, instructing him
to contact E mployer when he had been released to full duty. (2/27/13 H.T. at 14; Employer Ex. 4; 10/3/12 H.T. at 22

- 23.) On or about March 12, 2012, Employer discharged Claimant because he had exceeded the amount of absences permitted under its absenteeism policy an d was not eligible for medical leave because he had not been employed long enough. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶ 29 ; 2/27/13 H.T. at 14

- 15 ; Employer Ex. 4 .) Claimant underwent surgery to repair his inguinal hernia on3

March 26, 2012, and was fully recovered from th e hernia and capable of returning to work as of October 1, 2012. (WCJ Decision F.F. ¶¶ 32(b), 34 (e), (f), (g), 39.)

On June 18 , 2012, Claimant filed a c laim p etition asserting that he
suffered a work

- related aggravation of his pre

- existing ingu inal hernia and seeking total disability benefits and payment of h is medical bills

. Employer timely answered the claim petition, denying that Claimant’s aggravation of his hernia was work

- related. The WCJ held five days of evidentiary hearing s at which C laimant , Employer’s Human Resources (HR) manager, Claimant’s supervisor
, and a long

time friend of Claimant testified , and also receiv ed testimony by trial deposition of Dr. Bazewicz, the physician who performed Claimant’s hernia surgery

.

Claimant testi fied that after he returned to work in 2012, his additional duties required him to lift 40

- 70 pounds and that he began to have pain and swelling in the area of his hernia. (10/3/12 H.T. at 13

- 16.) Claimant’s supervisor
testified that given the items of t rash that Claimant was pick ing up and the size of the bags used for trash, the most that Claimant was lifting in his work duties in
2012 was 25 pounds. (2/27/13 H.T. at 29

- 30.) Both Employer’s HR manager and Claimant’s supervisor testified that Claimant never reported any work injury , work
accident or work

- related pain to them. ( Id. at 11

- 12, 19

- 20 , 32

- 34.) Employer’s HR manager also testified that when Claimant reported that he was going to have
surgery and brought in the doctor’s note setting restri ctions , Claimant did not assert that the surgery or restrictions had any connection to his work for Employer. ( Id.
at 11

- 18 .) Claimant’s friend had no knowledge of Claimant’s working conditions and testified only to a conversation, after March 2, 2012 in which she claimed that Employer’s HR manager acknowledged that Claimant’s impending surgery was for
a hernia. (5/22/13 H.T. at 22

- 28 .)4 Dr. Bazewicz testified that he first examined Claimant on March 8,
2012 and that Claimant reported to him that he ha d had the hernia for several years, “but that it had recently enlarged and become painful” and that Claimant “thought that lifting at work and doing some around the house things as well contributed to the hernia getting larger.” (Claimant’s Ex. 2 Bazewicz Dep. at 5.)
Dr. Bazewicz opined that Claimant’s pain from the hernia and need for surgery were caused by his work for Employer , basing this opinion on his understanding
that Claimant “was doing heavy lifting at work ” and that Claimant’s work involved
lif ting 40 to 70 pounds . ( Id. at 6

- 8 , 14

- 15 , 19

. ) Dr. Bazewicz ’s medical records , however, did not refer to any connection between Claimant’s work for Employer and his hernia symptoms, and Dr. Bazewicz admitted that non

- work strains on the abdomen, includin g coughing, violent sneezes, and bowel movements , can cause a hernia to become symptomatic

. ( Id. at 12

- 14 , 1 9

- 20 & Bazewicz Ex. 1 .) Claimant did not present testimony from the physician who had treated him for the hernia in February 2012, who had placed him under work restrictions and referred him for
surgery. On September 3 , 2014, t he WCJ issued a decision denying Claimant’s claim petition

. The WCJ found the testimony of Employer’s HR manager and Claimant’s supervisor credible and found the testimo ny of Claimant and his friend
not credible to the extent that it was inconsistent with the testimony of the HR manager and supervisor. ( WCJ Decision F.F. ¶¶ 18(e), 19(c), 21(d), 22(d), 23(b), 26(f), 36, 37.) The WCJ specifically found that Claimant’s work duties in 2012 involved lifting no more than 25 pounds, not the 40

- 70 pounds that Claimant contended that he was lifting, and specifically rejected Claimant’s testimony concerning the timing and severity of his symptoms as not credible. ( Id. F.F. ¶¶ 21(d) , 36.) The WCJ also rejected as less than credible the testimony of Dr.5

Bazewicz that Claimant’s work caused his hernia to worsen and become symptom atic. ( Id. F.F. ¶ 3 8 .) Based on t he se factual and credibility findings, the
WCJ concluded that Claimant ha d failed to meet his burden of proving a work

related injury, and, accordingly, deni ed the Claim Petition. ( Id. at 17

. ) Claimant appealed , and on October 20, 2015, the Board affirmed

. This appeal followed

. 1

Under the Work ers’ Compensation Act (the Act ), 2 the burden in a claim petition is on the claimant to prove that he has suffered a work

- related injury
and that the work

- related injury caused the disability for which he seeks compensation. Amandeo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board ( Conagra
Foods ) , 3 7 A.3d 72, 75

- 76 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012 ) ; Reyes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (AMTEC) , 967 A.2d 1071, 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) ( en banc )

. “ It is a fundamental principal [ sic ] of workers ’ compensation law that, absent proof of work

- related causati on of an injury, an employee is not entitled to compensation benefits. ” Rockwell Inter national v. Workers ’ Compensation Appeal
Board ( Sutton ) , 736 A.2d 742 , 744 ( Pa. Cmwlth. 1999 )

. Where the connection between the claimant’ s injury and disability and his work is not obvious, the claimant must prove causation by credible, unequivocal medical testimony

. Lewis
v. Workmen ’ s Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh B oard of Educ ation ) , 498
A.2d 800 , 802 (Pa. 1985) ; Moyer v. Workers ’ Compensation Appeal Board ( Po cono Mountain School Dist rict ) , 976 A.2d 597, 599 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 200 9 ) ; Taulton v. Workers ’ Compensation Appeal Board ( USX Corp. ) , 7 1 3 A.2d 142, 145 ( Pa. Cmwlth. 1998 )

. Because Claimant ’ s hernia pre

- dated his work for Employer ,

1 Our review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether the WCJ’s necess ary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence or whether constitutional rights or Board procedures were violated. Reyes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (AMTEC) , 967 A.2d 1071, 1076 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) ( en banc )

.

2 Act of June 2, 1 915, P.L. 736, as amended , 77 P.S. §§ 1

- 1041.4, 2501

- 2708.6

c ausation is not obvious here and Claimant was required to prove by credible medical testimony that he suffered an aggravation of his hernia that was caused by his work for Employer

. Moyer , 976 A.2d at 599 n.3; Somerset Welding & Steel v.
Workmen ’ s Compensation Appeal Board (Lee) , 650 A.2d 114 , 117 & n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)

.

Claimant argues that he s atisfied his burden of proving that he
suffered a work

- related injury . We do not agree. Claimant testified concerning his physical symptoms and his work for Employer and introduced an expert medical opinion connecting his injury to th os e working conditions

. T he WCJ , however, found that neither Claimant’s testimony on these subjects nor his expert’s opinion
was credible

. Where the WCJ finds that the claimant’s evidence th at he suffered a
work

- related injury is not credible, the claimant cannot meet his burden of proof and denial of the claim petition is required. Stalworth v. Workers ’ Compensation Appeal Board ( County of Delaware ) , 815 A.2d 23, 29

- 30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 200 2 ) ; R ockwell Inter

national , 736 A.2d at 745; Taulton , 7 1 3 A.2d at 145.
Determination of the credibility of witnesses is the prerogative of the WCJ, not the role of the Board or this Court. Furnari v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board ( Temple Inland ) , 90 A.3 d 53, 59

- 60, 70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014 ) ; Gann
v. Workers ’ Compensation Appeal Board ( MBS Management/Wellington East Development

) , 792 A.2d 701, 704 (Pa. Cmwlth. 200 2 )

. T he WCJ has exclusive province over questions of credibility and evidentiary weight, and may accept or reject the testimony of any witness , including medical experts, in whole or in part.
Furnari , 90 A.3d at 59, 70; Anderson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Penn Center for Rehab) , 15 A. 3d 944, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010); Rockwell , 736
A.2d at 743 n.1

.7 [N] either the Board nor the Court may reweigh the WCJ ’ s credibility determinations.

... Unless made arbitrarily or capriciously, a WCJ ’ s credibility determinations will be upheld on appeal.
Furnari , 90 A.3d at 70.

The WCJ’s credibility dete rminations here were supported by the
record and well within his discretion . The WCJ had the opportunity to observe Claimant’s demeanor, as Claimant testified at three hearings before the WCJ. See
Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Tr ansport) , 828 A.2d
1043 , 1053 (Pa. 2003) (where witness testified in person before WCJ , no explanation of credibility determination is required) . In addition, t he WCJ explained that Claimant’s testimony was not credible because it was inconsistent
with hi s communications with Employer and his behavior at the time and because
it was contradicted by credible testimony of Employer’s witnesses. (WCJ
Decision F.F. ¶ 36.) The WCJ explained that he rejected Dr. Ba z ewicz’s causation opinion because it was based o n information concerning Claimant’s work that he
had found not credible and because Dr. Ba z ewicz’s records did not indicate that Claimant’s condition was connected to Claimant’s work for Employer

. ( Id. F.F. ¶ 38.) As this Court aptly stated in Anderson , “ Claimant essentially asks this Court to reweigh the evidence. This Court will not do so. ” 15 A. 3d at 949.

Given the WCJ’s credibility determinations, Claimant could not meet his burden of proof and denial of the claim petition was required. Accordingl y, the Board did not err in affirming the WCJ’s denial of Claimant’s c laim p etition in this

matter , and w e affirm the Board’s order

.

____________________________________ JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVAN IA

Aziz Moumen , : : Petitioner :

: v. : No. 2608 C.D. 201 5
: Workers’ Compensation Appeal : Board ( Supreme Mid Atlantic : Trucking ), : : Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 2 nd day of September , 201 6 , the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board in the above matter is AFFIRMED

.

____________________________________ JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge