IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Gerald Walker, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board :

(Drexel University), : No. 904 C.D. 2019

Respondent : Submitted: December 27, 2019

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: April 29, 2020

Gerald Walker (Claimant) petitions for review of the June 20, 2019

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

and order of Workers’ Compensation Judge Andrea McCormick (WCJ) reaffirming 

the WCJ’s October 17, 2016 decision that granted Claimant’s Claim Petition for 

Compensation Benefits (Claim Petition) filed against Drexel University (Employer) 

pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act),

1

awarding benefits from May 28, 

2015 through August 13, 2015, and terminating Claimant’s benefits thereafter. We 

affirm.

 

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

On May 28, 2015, while working as a building maintenance worker for 

Employer, Claimant suffered an injury to his back lifting and carrying two fivegallon paint buckets up steps. WCJ Decision circulated October 17, 2016 (Original 

WCJ Decision) at 3, Findings of Fact (F.F.) 1-2. Claimant reported the incident to 

his superiors and filled out an incident report. Original WCJ Decision at 4, F.F. 4(c). 

Claimant, who had a history of lower back complaints and treatment, sought medical 

treatment, including an MRI, and was released to return to work on light duty. 

Original WCJ Decision at 4, F.F. 4(d). Ultimately, Claimant’s medical providers

released him to return to full-duty work. Original WCJ Decision at 4, F.F. 4(e).

On June 29, 2015, Claimant filed the Claim Petition claiming partial 

disability from May 28, 2015 through June 24, 2015, and continuing full disability 

from June 25, 2015 onward. See Claim Petition, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 5a10a; Board Opinion dated June 20, 2017 (Original Board Opinion) at 1. The Claim 

Petition alleged that, while carrying the buckets up the steps, Claimant suffered: 

annular tears at L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1; aggravation and exacerbation of 

degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine; and lumbar sprain and strain. Original 

Board Opinion at 1; Claim Petition, R.R. at 6a. Employer filed a timely Answer to 

Claim Petition (Answer) that denied all material allegations of the Claim Petition. 

See Original WCJ Decision at 3; Original Board Opinion at 1; Answer, R.R. at 11a15a.

Claimant testified before the WCJ at a hearing conducted on July 30, 

2015. See Original WCJ Decision at 3-5; see also Original Board Opinion at 2-3; 

July 30, 2015 Hearing Transcript, R.R. at 56a-90a. Claimant testified that he has 

worked for Employer for 17 years, the last 4 of which he has worked in 
3

maintenance.2 See Original WCJ Decision at 3, F.F. 4(a); see also Original Board 

Opinion at 2. Claimant explained that, on May 28, 2015, he was carrying two fivegallon paint buckets, each weighing in excess of 50 pounds, when he felt a pain in 

his back and along his right side with shooting pain down into his legs and feet. See

Original WCJ Decision at 4, F.F. 4(c); see also Original Board Opinion at 2. 

Claimant explained that he reported the injury to his boss and completed an incident 

report. See Original WCJ Decision at 3, F.F. 4(c); see also Original Board Opinion 

at 3. Claimant testified that he reported to WorkNet Occupational Medicine 

(WorkNet), where he was seen several times and ultimately placed on light work 

duty, which he was able to perform. See Original WCJ Decision at 4, F.F. 4(d)-(e); 

see also Original Board Opinion at 3. Claimant explained that when WorkNet 

released him to full work duty, Employer took away the light-duty work. See

Original WCJ Decision at 4, F.F. 4(e); see also Original Board Opinion at 3. 

Claimant testified that he has not returned to work in any capacity since June 25, 

2015, although his physician, Jeffrey T. Truitt, M.D., has returned him to work in a 

modified capacity. See Original WCJ Decision at 5, F.F. 4(h). 

Claimant further testified that, over the past 10 years, he has had a 

history of lower back complaints and treatment with multiple medical providers. See

Original WCJ Decision at 4-5, F.F. 4(d) & 4(g); see also Original Board Opinion at 

3. Claimant conceded that he treated regularly for back problems in 2014 and 2015, 

 

2 Claimant explained that the job duties of a maintenance worker include a variety of tasks, 

including painting, plumbing, electrical work, furniture repair, and the installation of floor tiles 

and sheetrock. See Original WCJ Decision at 3, F.F. 4(a); see also Original Board Opinion at 2. 

He further explained that the maintenance position required him to lift items up to 40 or 50 pounds, 

including toilets, paint buckets, floor tiles, ceiling tiles, and bunk beds and other furniture. See

Original WCJ Decision at 4, F.F. 4(b); see also Original Board Opinion at 2. He would climb 

ladders and reach and bend as well. See Original WCJ Decision at 4, F.F. 4(b). Additionally, the 

performance of plumbing repairs would require him to squat, crouch, and crawl. Id.
4

which treatment included epidural injections. See Original WCJ Decision at 4-5, 

F.F. 4(g); see also Original Board Opinion at 3. Claimant also explained that, for 

several weeks prior to May 28, 2015, he treated with Dr. Truitt, who prescribed 

medication and administered multiple epidural injections. See Original WCJ 

Decision at 4-5, F.F. 4(d) & 4(g); see also Original Board Opinion at 3. Claimant 

testified that, under Dr. Truitt’s care, he was able to perform all his work duties. See

Original WCJ Decision at 4, F.F. 4(d).

Claimant also presented Dr. Truitt’s deposition testimony. See Original 

WCJ Decision at 5-6, F.F. 5; see also Original Board Opinion at 3-5; Truitt 

Deposition Transcript, R.R. at 106a-262a. Dr. Truitt testified that he began treating 

Claimant on January 4, 2012, three years prior to the instant work injury, at which 

time Dr. Truitt diagnosed Claimant with lumbar degenerative disc disease with 

radiculopathy, cervical myofascial pain syndrome and chronic anti-coagulant 

treatment. See Original WCJ Decision at 5, F.F. 5(a); see also Original Board 

Opinion at 3. Dr. Truitt explained that Claimant’s diagnoses remained unchanged 

from 2012 through the first half of 2014. See Original WCJ Decision at 5, F.F. 5(a). 

Dr. Truitt explained that in June 2014, Claimant’s diagnosis was lumbar 

degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy, bilateral S1 radiculopathy, and 

peripheral neuropathy. See Original WCJ Decision at 5, F.F. 5(a); see also Original 

Board Opinion at 3.

Dr. Truitt further testified that Claimant presented with complaints of 

lower back pain with definite burning pain in the lower extremities. See Original 

WCJ Decision at 5, F.F. 5(b); see also Original Board Opinion at 4. Dr. Truitt 

explained that Claimant maintained these complaints on May 5, 2015, a few weeks 

prior to the work injury. See Original WCJ Decision at 5-6, F.F. 5(b); see also 
5

Original Board Opinion at 4. Dr. Truitt testified that he next saw Claimant on June 

8, 2015, at which time his diagnoses remained unchanged. See Original WCJ

Decision at 6, F.F. 5(b). Additionally, Dr. Truitt testified that Claimant’s June 2015 

lumbar spine MRI showed annular tears at L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 that had 

previously not been present in a January 2014 MRI. See Original Board Opinion at 

4.

In opposition to the Claim Petition, Employer presented the testimony 

of WorkNet physician Lawrence Axelrod, M.D. See Original WCJ Decision at 7, 

F.F. 11; see also Original Board Opinion at 5; Axelrod Deposition Transcript, R.R. 

at 263a-319a. Dr. Axelrod testified that Claimant received treatment in his office on 

May 28, 2015, and again on June 4, 2015, at which time Dr. Axelrod reviewed 

Claimant’s diagnostic testing and conducted a physical examination. See Original 

WCJ Decision at 7, F.F. 11(a); see also Original Board Opinion at 5. Dr. Axelrod 

testified that Claimant’s May 2015 lumbar spine MRI showed multiple degenerative 

disc changes and dehydration with annular tears between L3 and S1. See Original 

Board Opinion at 5. Dr. Axelrod testified that he concluded that Claimant had 

consistent and chronic complaints of pain for nine years preceding the work injury. 

Id. Dr. Axelrod diagnosed Claimant at that time with low back pain with possible 

radiculopathy, the existence of which predated the work injury. Id. 

Dr. Axelrod further testified that a week later, on June 11, 2015, he 

performed an updated physical examination and reviewed an updated MRI of 

Claimant’s lumbar spine. See Original WCJ Decision at 7, F.F. 11(b). Dr. Axelrod 

testified that the MRI displayed annular tears in the lumbar spine, which Dr. Axelrod 

described as degenerative changes. Id. Dr. Axelrod testified that the new MRI 

displayed no changes from the one he had previously reviewed. Id. Dr. Axelrod 
6

explained that he next treated Claimant on July 1, 2015, and that Claimant had 

complained of incontinence. Id. Dr. Axelrod explained that he discharged Claimant 

to full work duty on July 1, 2015. Id.

Employer also presented the testimony of Dennis McHugh, D.O. See

Original WCJ Decision at 7-8, F.F. 12; see also Original Board Opinion at 5-7; 

McHugh Deposition Transcript, R.R. at 320a-74a. Dr. McHugh, a board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, testified that he conducted a physical examination of Claimant 

on August 13, 2015. See Original WCJ Decision at 7, F.F. 12(a); Original Board 

Opinion at 5. Dr. McHugh testified that he diagnosed Claimant as having suffered 

a lumbar strain on May 28, 2015. See Original WCJ Decision at 7, F.F. 12(a); 

Original Board Opinion at 6. However, Dr. McHugh further testified that Claimant 

had fully recovered from the work injury, and that any continuing complaints were 

the result of Claimant’s preexisting back condition. Id. Dr. McHugh further testified 

that he reviewed Claimant’s June 2015 MRI study, in which he noted no annular 

tears and instead, at most, minor disc bulges related to Claimant’s preexisting back 

issues. See Original WCJ Decision at 8, F.F. 12(a).

The WCJ found the testimony of Employer’s witnesses, Drs. Axelrod 

and McHugh, to be credible. See Original WCJ Decision at 8-9, F.F. 16. However, 

the WCJ found Claimant only partially credible to the extent Claimant testified that 

he suffered an injury to his lumbar spine while performing his work duties on May 

28, 2015, but did not find Claimant credible regarding his injury and claimed 

disability. See Original WCJ Decision at 8, F.F. 14. Instead, the WCJ determined 

that Claimant had a documented, preexisting lower back condition/treatment in the 

weeks preceding the alleged work injury and that any ongoing disability after August 

13, 2015 was related to Claimant’s preexisting lumbar condition as opposed to the 
7

May 28, 2015 work injury. Id. Likewise, the WCJ rejected the testimony of 

Claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Truitt. See Original WCJ Decision at 8, F.F. 15. 

The WCJ found Dr. Truitt’s testimony to be neither credible nor persuasive in light 

of Dr. Truitt’s treatment records that documented Claimant’s preexisting lumbar 

injury and treatment. Id.

The WCJ decided the Claim Petition by decision issued on October 17, 

2016. See Original WCJ Decision. In the Original WCJ Decision, the WCJ found: 

(1) Claimant met his burden of proving that he sustained a lumbar sprain and strain 

on May 28, 2015, which did not aggravate any preexisting underlying condition of 

his lumbar spine; and (2) Claimant fully recovered from his work injury as of August 

13, 2015. See Original WCJ Decision at 9; Original Board Opinion at 1. 

Accordingly, the WCJ awarded Claimant temporary total disability benefits for the 

period of May 28, 2015 through August 13, 2015, and terminated Claimant’s 

benefits thereafter. See Original WCJ Decision at 10; Original Board Opinion at 1. 

Claimant appealed. See On-Line Appeal dated November 6, 2016.

The Board reviewed the Original WCJ Decision and determined that, 

in rendering her decision, the WCJ may have failed to consider that all three medical 

professionals noted that Claimant’s post-injury May 30, 2015 MRI showed evidence 

of annular tears whereas the pre-injury, December 2014 MRI did not. See Original 

Board Opinion at 8-9. Accordingly, the Board remanded the matter for the WCJ to 

“once again consider the testimony of the medical experts regarding their 

interpretation of the MRI findings and then issue a determination as to the extent of 

Claimant’s work injury and Claimant’s continuing disability.” Original Board 

Opinion at 10. The Board affirmed the Original WCJ Decision in all other respects. 

Original Board Opinion at 10.
8

Following the Board’s remand, on March 23, 2018, the WCJ issued a 

second decision (WCJ Remand Decision), in which the WCJ explained that she had 

re-reviewed the testimony of the medical experts. See WCJ Remand Decision at 3, 

F.F. 5. The WCJ noted Dr. Truitt’s deposition testimony that the annular tears 

visible on Claimant’s May 30, 2015 MRI were work-related and consistent with 

traumatic injury. See WCJ Remand Decision at 3, F.F. 7. However, the WCJ noted 

that Dr. Truitt had not previously offered such an opinion in any of his multiple prior 

reports, which the WCJ explained instead supported Dr. Truitt’s previous primary 

diagnosis of degenerative disc disease. Id.

The WCJ also found that both Drs. Axelrod and McHugh testified as to 

the differences in Claimant’s MRI studies. See WCJ Remand Decision at 3, F.F. 5. 

The WCJ noted that Dr. Axelrod opined that the annular tears visible in the May 

2015 MRI were degenerative in nature. Id. Further, the WCJ explained that Dr. 

Axelrod had testified credibly that the May 2015 MRI showed multi-level 

degenerative disc changes consistent with Claimant’s previous MRI. Id. The WCJ 

also explained that her review of Dr. McHugh’s testimony revealed that Dr. McHugh 

disagreed with Dr. Truitt’s opinion that Claimant sustained work-related annular 

tears. See WCJ Remand Decision at 3, F.F. 6. The WCJ stated that Dr. McHugh 

opined that the suspect annular tears were degenerative in nature and not caused by 

the work injury. Id. Additionally, the WCJ explained that Dr. McHugh indicated 

that Claimant’s spinal stenosis preexisted the work injury and was in existence since 

at least 2011. Id. The WCJ explained that Dr. McHugh testified that Claimant did 

not suffer any change in his back as a result of the May 28, 2015 work injury. Id.

As in the Original WCJ Decision, the WCJ rejected Dr. Truitt’s 

testimony, expressly finding it “neither credible nor convincing.” WCJ Remand 
9

Decision at 3, F.F. 7. Alternatively, the WCJ once more found Drs. Axelrod and 

McHugh to be more credible than Dr. Truitt. See WCJ Remand Decision at 3-4, F.F. 

5-8. Accordingly, the WCJ reaffirmed the Original WCJ Decision. See WCJ 

Remand Decision at 3-5, F.F. 8 & Order. 

Claimant again appealed, alleging that the WCJ capriciously 

disregarded substantial evidence and failed to render a reasoned decision because 

the WCJ accepted the opinions of Employer’s medical experts. See On-Line Appeal 

dated April 12, 2018. Additionally, on October 12, 2018, Claimant filed a Motion 

to Amend Appeal in which Claimant alleged ongoing misconduct and bias on the 

part of the WCJ against Claimant and Claimant’s counsel. See Motion to Amend 

Appeal. In response, Employer moved to quash Claimant’s Motion to Amend 

Appeal as untimely filed. See Motion to Quash.

The Board affirmed the Remand WCJ Decision by opinion dated June 

20, 2019 (Board Remand Opinion). See generally Board Remand Opinion. As the 

Board explained:

On remand, the WCJ again rejected Dr. Truitt’s opinion as 

to the extent of the work injury and disability, again 

observing that Dr. Truitt’s diagnoses and Claimant’s 

complaints are consistent before and after the work injury, 

and that in contrast to his deposition testimony, Dr. 

Truitt’s records do not place any significance on the 

annular tears. Claimant has the burden of proving an 

injury and disability. Because the WCJ rejected Dr. 

Truitt’s opinion, Claimant could not meet his burden in 

support of a more extensive description of injury or 

ongoing disability.
10

Board Remand Opinion at 7. The Board also granted Employer’s Motion to Quash 

Claimant’s Motion to Amend Appeal as untimely. See Board Remand Opinion at 3. 

Claimant timely petitioned this Court for review.3

Claimant alleges that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ for four 

reasons: (1) the WCJ “fabricated” a nonexistent opinion of Dr. Axelrod; (2) the 

WCJ based her determination on an MRI report that was contradicted by the experts; 

(3) the WCJ did not explain why she accepted Dr. McHugh’s opinion that the lumbar 

spine annular tears were not caused by the work injury; and (4) the Board improperly 

quashed Claimant’s Motion to Amend Appeal that was filed only 12 days after the 

WCJ was removed as a workers’ compensation judge. See Claimant’s Brief at 3.

Initially, we note that “[w]ith respect to a claim petition, the claimant 

bears the initial burden of proving that [an] injury arose in the course of employment 

and was related thereto.” Frankiewicz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kinder 

Morgan, Inc.), 177 A.3d 991, 995 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). “Moreover, the claimant not 

only must prove that she has sustained a compensable injury but also that the injury 

continues to cause disability throughout the pendency of the claim petition 

 

3

In workers’ compensation appeals, this Court’s “scope of review is limited to determining 

whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law was committed and 

whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Morocho v. Workers’ 

Comp. Appeal Bd. (Home Equity Renovations, Inc.), 167 A.3d 855, 858 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) 

(citing Johnson v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dubois Courier Express), 631 A.2d 693 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1993)).

Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence a reasonable person might 

find sufficient to support the WCJ’s findings. In determining whether a finding of 

fact is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must consider the evidence as 

a whole, view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed 

before the WCJ, and draw all reasonable inferences which are deducible from the 

evidence in favor of the prevailing party.

Frog, Switch & Mfg. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Johnson), 106 A.3d 202, 206 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
11

proceeding.” Milner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Main Line Endoscopy Ctr.), 

995 A.2d 492, 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). “If the WCJ feels that the evidence supports 

a finding of disability only for a closed period, she is free to make such a finding.” 

Id. “Generally, if there is no obvious relationship between the disability and the 

work-related cause, unequivocal medical testimony is required to meet this burden 

of proof.” Frankiewicz, 177 A.3d at 995. “Medical evidence is considered 

unequivocal if the medical expert, after providing a foundation, testifies that in his 

medical opinion, he thinks the facts exist.” Craftsmen v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal 

Bd. (Krouchick), 809 A.2d 434, 439 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Further, as this Court has 

previously noted:

[t]he WCJ is the fact finder, and it is solely for the WCJ . 

. . to assess credibility and to resolve conflicts in the 

evidence. Neither the Board nor this Court may reweigh 

the evidence or the WCJ’s credibility determinations. In 

addition, it is solely for the WCJ, as the factfinder, to 

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

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

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

Hawbaker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kriner’s Quality Roofing Servs. & 

Uninsured Employer Guar. Fund), 159 A.3d 61, 69 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 

173 A.3d 252 (Pa. 2017) (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted).

Claimant’s first claim, that the WCJ “fabricated” Dr. Axelrod’s opinion 

that the annular tears evidenced on Claimant’s May 2015 MRI were degenerative in 

nature is belied by the record. See Claimant’s Brief at 20-21. In discussing the 

updated May 2015 MRI study, Dr. Axelrod testified:
12

[The May 30, 2015 lumbar spine MRI] reported 

multiple-level degenerative disc changes with 

dehydration.

There were annular tears between L3 and S1. There 

were osteophyte complexes at L4-[L]5 and a compressed 

fecal sac with moderate facet overgrowth.

These are, you know, again some degenerative 

changes with thickening of the ligamentum flavum which 

is a ligament that’s on the posterior aspect of the lumbar 

spine. And this resulted in minor central canal and 

moderate right-sided narrowing.

At L5-S1, there was another disc osteophyte 

complex. So [Claimant] had his chronic complaints of 

pain with these MRI abnormalities.

[I] reviewed [Claimant’s] previous lumbar spine 

MRI reports. And they also documented that these were 

not any significant new changes. But rather, these were 

changes also evident on his previous MRI from 2011.

Axelrod Deposition Transcript at 17-18. Based on this testimony, the WCJ found 

Dr. Axelrod had opined that Claimant’s annular tears were degenerative in nature. 

WCJ Remand Decision at 3, F.F. 5. On review, the Board stated:

We do not agree that the WCJ blatantly mischaracterized 

Dr. Axelrod’s testimony on direct examination. Dr. 

Axelrod stated that there were multiple-level degenerative 

disc changes with dehydration, annular tears between L3 

and S1, osteophyte complexes at L4-[L]5 and a 

compressed thecal [sic] sac with moderate facet 

overgrowth, and a disc osteophyte complex at L5-S1. He 

did not expressly state “degenerative annular tears”; 

nevertheless, his testimony is readily susceptible to that 

interpretation. 
13

Board Remand Opinion at 7-8. Upon review of the record, we find no error in the 

Board’s assessment of the WCJ’s finding of fact. 

A review of Dr. Axelrod’s deposition testimony reveals that his 

testimony regarding the results of a May 30, 2015 MRI was prefaced by a general 

statement that said MRI revealed “multiple-level degenerative disc changes.” 

Axelrod Deposition Transcript at 17. Dr. Axelrod then appeared to specify these 

changes, which included annular tears between L3 and S1, as well as osteophyte 

complexes at L4-L5 and L5-S1 and a compressed fecal sac with moderate facet 

overgrowth. Id. at 18. A reasonable interpretation of Dr. Axelrod’s testimony is 

that he identified these conditions, including the annular tears, as degenerative disc 

changes. Claimant’s argument that the WCJ erred by fabricating Dr. Axelrod’s 

testimony regarding the degenerative nature of Claimant’s annular tears lacks merit.

Next, Claimant alleges the WCJ Remand Decision was not “reasoned” 

because it was based on the June 26, 2015 MRI report, which Claimant alleges was 

contradicted by all the experts’ testimony. See Claimant’s Brief at 21-22. We 

disagree.

Regarding reasoned WCJ decisions, Section 422(a) of the Act provides, 

in pertinent part:

All parties to an adjudicatory proceeding 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 workers’ 

compensation judge shall specify the evidence upon which 

the workers’ compensation judge relies and state the 

reasons for accepting it in conformity with this section. 

When faced with conflicting evidence, the workers’ 

compensation judge must adequately explain the reasons 
14

for rejecting or discrediting competent evidence. . . . The 

adjudication shall provide the basis for meaningful 

appellate review.

77 P.S. § 834. As our Supreme Court has explained:

[A] decision is “reasoned” for purposes of Section 422(a) 

if it allows for adequate review by the [Board] without 

further elucidation and if it allows for adequate review by 

the appellate courts under applicable review standards. A 

reasoned decision is no more, and no less.

Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 828 A.2d 1043, 1052 (Pa. 

2003).

Here, contrary to Claimant’s suggestion, the June 26, 2015 MRI was 

not the sole basis for the WCJ’s determination on remand. In fact, on remand the 

WCJ found Drs. Axelrod and McHugh more credible than Claimant’s medical expert 

for multiple reasons. See WCJ Remand Decision at 3-4, F.F. 5-8. The WCJ noted 

that both Dr. Axelrod and Dr. McHugh opined that the annular tears were 

degenerative in nature, which contrasted with Dr. Truitt’s opinion that the annular 

tears were consistent with traumatic injury. See WCJ Remand Decision at 3, F.F. 5-

7. The WCJ also noted the apparent diagnostic inconsistencies between Dr. Truitt’s 

deposition opinion and his multiple medical reports, which provided a primary 

diagnosis of degenerative disc disease for Claimant’s lumbar spine issues. See WCJ 

Remand Decision at 3, F.F. 7. Ultimately, the WCJ found Employer’s medical 

experts to be more convincing than Claimant’s expert. The WCJ explained:

Consistent with my earlier opinion, this Judge finds that 

Claimant had a significant back condition that pre-existed 

the work injury, and that is supported by the medical 

evidence of record. While there is a dispute between 
15

medical experts as to whether or not the annular tears are 

degenerative in nature or traumatic, this Judge found the 

testimony of the defense experts more credible on that 

issue where the annular tears were not seen on a 

subsequent MRI study performed in June 2015 and where 

Dr. Truitt’s reports underscored his opinion that 

Claimant’s main diagnosis was degenerative changes 

despite his testimony to the contrary for purposes of 

litigation.

WCJ Remand Decision at 3-4, F.F. 8. Clearly, the WCJ did not base the WCJ 

Remand Decision solely on the June 26, 2015 MRI, and we decline to upset the 

WCJ’s evidentiary weight determinations. See Hawbaker. Further, because the 

WCJ Remand Decision adequately expresses the reasons for the WCJ’s evidentiary 

determinations, we are able to conduct adequate review. Therefore, Claimant’s 

claim that the WCJ Remand Decision is not reasoned fails. See Daniels, 828 A.2d 

at 1052.

Additionally, the fact that Dr. McHugh reviewed MRI reports and not

the actual MRI images is of no moment. Medical witnesses may express an opinion 

based upon records that are of the kind on which the medical professional

customarily relies in the practice of their profession. See Empire Steel Castings, Inc. 

v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cruceta), 749 A.2d 1021, 1026 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). 

MRI reports represent such records. See, e.g., Smith v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. 

(HealthSouth of Mechanicsburg, Inc.) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2710 C.D. 2015, filed Aug. 

5, 2016),4slip op. at 3-7 (discussing a physician’s review of MRI reports as part of 

a medical record review for purpose of diagnosis).

 

4 Pursuant to Commonwealth Court Internal Operating Procedure 414(a), 210 Pa. Code § 

69.414(a), unreported panel decisions of this Court, issued after January 15, 2008, may be cited 

for their persuasive value.
16

Thirdly, Claimant alleges the WCJ erred by failing to explain the 

acceptance of Dr. McHugh’s opinion that the annular tears were degenerative in 

nature. See Claimant’s Brief at 22-24. This argument lacks merit.

During his deposition testimony, Dr. McHugh provided the following 

explanation of Claimant’s annular tears:

Q. Doctor, that fact that we see annular tears in the May 

MRI, does that mean those annular tears are work-related, 

Doctor?

A. No, it does not. 

Q. What do you attribute those annular tears to?

A. I attribute – genetically speaking this gentleman has 

[a] predisposition for chronic degenerative findings in his 

back. It is due to the chronic degenerative issues.

McHugh Deposition Transcript at 67. The WCJ credited Dr. McHugh’s testimony 

over that of Dr. Truitt on the question of whether the annular tears were the result of 

trauma or degenerative issues. See WCJ Remand Decision at 3-4, F.F. 8. Claimant’s 

disagreement with the conclusions the WCJ reached upon reviewing the evidence 

does not render those conclusions unreasoned. 

Finally, Claimant alleges the Board erred by quashing his Motion to 

Amend Appeal. See Claimant’s Brief at 24-26. We disagree.

Section 423(a) of the Act allows a party to appeal an adverse WCJ 

adjudication within 20 days as follows:

Any party in interest may, within twenty days after notice 

of a workers’ compensation judge’s adjudication shall 

have been served upon him, take an appeal to the board on 

the ground: (1) that the adjudication is not in conformity 

with the terms of this act, or that the workers’
17

compensation judge committed any other error of law; (2) 

that the findings of fact and adjudication was unwarranted 

by sufficient, competent evidence or was procured by 

fraud, coercion, or other improper conduct of any party in 

interest. The board may, upon cause shown, extend the 

time provided in this article for taking such appeal or for 

the filing of an answer or other pleading.

77 P.S. § 853 (footnote omitted). The 20-day time limitation is jurisdictional in 

nature, non-discretionary, and must be strictly enforced. Manolovich v. Workers’ 

Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kay Jewelers, Inc.), 694 A.2d 405, 409 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

Here, the WCJ issued the WCJ Remand Decision on March 23, 2018. 

Thus, Claimant had until April 12, 2018 to timely file an appeal, including 

Claimant’s claim that the WCJ Remand Decision resulted from the WCJ’s bias 

against Claimant and Claimant’s counsel. Claimant did not file his Motion to 

Amend Appeal until October 12, 2018. Based on this timeline, the Board determined 

it lacked jurisdiction to consider the arguments contained in the Motion to Amend

Appeal and granted Employer’s Motion to Quash. See Board Remand Opinion at 3.

We agree that the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider Claimant’s 

bias/misconduct claim. While the WCJ’s termination did not occur until October 1, 

2018, Claimant could have raised a bias claim on appeal regardless of the WCJ’s 

employment status. He made no such claim, however, until he filed his Motion to 

Amend Appeal on October 12, 2018, half a year after the expiration of the statutory 

appeal deadline. Accordingly, the Board lacked jurisdiction to address such a claim 

and properly quashed Claimant’s Motion to Amend Appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, the Board’s order is affirmed.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Gerald Walker, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board :

(Drexel University), : No. 904 C.D. 2019

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 2020, the June 20, 2019 order of 

the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge