IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cynthia Faulkner, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Ann’s Choice, Inc. (Workers’ :

Compensation Appeal Board), : No. 207 C.D. 2023

Respondent : Submitted: February 6, 2024

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: March 4, 2024

Cynthia Faulkner (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the 

Workers’ Compensation (WC) Appeal Board’s (Board) February 9, 2023 order 

affirming the WC Judge’s (WCJ) decision that denied Claimant’s Claim Petition for 

WC Benefits (Claim Petition) and granted Ann’s Choice, Inc.’s (Employer) Petition 

to Terminate WC Benefits (Termination Petition). Claimant presents two issues for 

this Court’s review: (1) whether the WCJ erred by denying Claimant’s Claim 

Petition; and (2) whether the WCJ erred by failing to grant litigation costs to 

Claimant’s attorney. After review, this Court affirms.

On August 24, 2020, Claimant sustained a low back strain or tear in the 

course of her employment with Employer. On September 4, 2020, Employer filed a 

Medical-Only Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable (NTCP) acknowledging 

medical liability for the injury. On November 24, 2020, the medical-only NTCP 

converted to a medical-only Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). On June 17, 

2021, Employer filed the Termination Petition, therein alleging that Claimant had 
2

fully recovered from the work injury as of May 27, 2021. Claimant filed an Answer 

to the Termination Petition. On July 18, 2021, Claimant filed the Claim Petition,

therein alleging that she sustained a lower back sprain/strain, and an aggravation of 

her degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral spine as a result of the August 24, 

2020 injury, and that the injury caused her to stop working on June 22, 2021. 

Employer filed a timely Answer to the Claim Petition. 

The WCJ held hearings on July 22 and October 28, 2021, and March 

21, 2022. On July 25, 2022, the WCJ denied Claimant’s Claim Petition and granted 

Employer’s Termination Petition. Claimant appealed to the Board. Claimant argued

to the Board that the WCJ erred by denying her Claim Petition and failing to award 

litigation costs because the Claim Petition should have been granted. On February 

9, 2023, the Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision. Claimant appealed to this Court.1 

Initially, 

[i]n an original claim petition, a claimant bears the burden 

of proving all of the elements necessary to support an 

award of benefits. Inglis House v. Workmen’s Comp[.] 

Appeal [Bd.] (Reedy), . . . 634 A.2d 592 ([Pa.] 1993). 

Thus, a claimant must establish that he sustained an injury 

during the course of his employment and that he is 

disabled as a result of that injury. Id. . . . . The claimant’s 

burden to prove disability never shifts to the employer 

and this burden remains with the claimant throughout 

the pendency of the claim petition. Coyne [v. Workers’ 

Comp. Appeal Bd. (Villanova Univ.), 942 A.2d 939 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2008)]; Innovative Spaces v. Workmen’s Comp[.]

Appeal [Bd.] (DeAngelis), 646 A.2d 51 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 

1994)[.]

1

“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.” DiLaqua v. City of Phila. Fire Dep’t (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 268 A.3d 1, 

4 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (quoting Bristol Borough v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Burnett), 206 

A.3d 585, 595 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019)).
3

Potere v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kemcorp), 21 A.3d 684, 689-90 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2011) (citation omitted; emphasis added).

Claimant first argues that the WCJ erred by not granting her Claim 

Petition. Specifically, Claimant contends that the undisputed record evidence 

demonstrates that she sustained a work injury and a disability because the work 

injury was recognized via a medical-only NCP, and the disability was shown by the 

fact that she did not return to her pre-injury job, but instead worked in a modified 

capacity. Employer rejoins that Claimant failed to sustain her burden of proving 

disability related to the work injury. Specifically, Employer retorts that the WCJ

determined that Claimant and her medical expert were not credible with respect to 

any past and ongoing disability claim and the WCJ accepted the testimony of

Employer’s expert and fact witness supporting a lack of disability or earning power

after the injury based upon Claimant’s return to work without wage loss and full 

recovery as of May 27, 2021.

This Court has explained:

In [WC], the term “disability” is synonymous with a loss 

of earning power attributable to the work injury.

Landmark Constructors, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp[.] Appeal 

[Bd.] (Costello), . . . 747 A.2d 850, 854 ([Pa.] 2000). This 

means that “‘we determine the degree of a worker’s 

disability by reference to how the injury affected his 

earnings,’ as opposed to looking to the extent of the 

employee’s physical injuries.” Id. (quoting Kachinski v. 

Workmen’s Comp[.] Appeal [Bd.] (Vepco Constr[.]

Co.), . . . 532 A.2d 374, 378 ([Pa.] 1987)) (emphasis 

added). If an injured employee can no longer earn wages 

because of h[er] work injury, [s]he is considered totally 

disabled. [See] Kmart v. Workers’ Comp[.] Appeal [Bd.]

(Williams), 771 A.2d 82, 85 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).
4

Palaschak v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (US Airways), 35 A.3d 1242, 1247 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2012).

2 Further, Section 306(a.1) of the WC Act (Act)3

expressly provides: 

“Nothing in this [A]ct shall require payment of compensation . . . for any period . . . 

during which the employe is employed and receiving wages equal to or greater than 

the employe’s prior earnings.” 77 P.S. § 511.1.

Here, Employer’s Human Resources Manager Joann Crescenzo

(Crescenzo) testified that after Claimant was injured, Claimant continued to work in 

transitional duty until December 2020, when she was out of work due to a non-workrelated knee surgery. See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 199a-202a. Crescenzo 

further related that Claimant returned to transitional duty on May 10, 2021, and 

continued to work until June 14, 2021. See R.R. at 203a. Claimant also testified 

that she was injured in September 2020, and went out of work on November 24, 

2020, for a non-work-related knee surgery, until May 2021, when she returned to 

work until June 2021. See R.R. at 303a-304a. 

The WCJ found:

13. Having observed Claimant’s demeanor at the 

videotape hearing and having reviewed the evidence of 

record in its entirety, [the WCJ] finds Claimant’s 

testimony regarding the mechanism of injury is credible 

but her testimony regarding ongoing work-related 

disability is not credible. In so finding, [the WCJ] notes 

that Claimant reported the work injury, received medical 

treatment and restrictions[,] and returned to work 

restricted duty without a wage loss. She worked restricted

transitional duty from September of 2020 to November 24, 

2020[,] when she went out of work for non-work[-]related 

knee surgery. As a result of this surgery, she remained out 

2 Palaschak was disapproved on other grounds in Cozzone ex rel. Cozzone v. Workers’ 

Comp. Appeal Bd. (Pa. Mun./E. Goshen Twp.), 73 A.3d 526, 538-39 (Pa. 2013).

3 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by Act of October 24, 2018, P.L. 714, 

No. 111 (Act 111), 77 P.S. § 511.3.
5

of work until [December 20204]. From December of 2020 

to May of 2021, Claimant never treated for her work 

injury. As of the [independent medical examination (]

IME[)] on May 27, 2021, she was not in active treatment 

and was no longer taking medication or receiving physical 

therapy for her back. She did not seek treatment for her 

back until after the Termination Petition was filed on June 

17, 2021. Four days later, on June 21, 2021, Claimant saw

[Michael McCoy, M.D.,] at the referral of counsel. 

Additionally, the [functional capacity evaluation] was 

invalid due to evidence of symptom magnification.

. . . .

15. [The WCJ] finds the testimony of [] Crescenzo to be 

credible as it is consistent with the documentary evidence.

16. Claimant failed to meet her burden of proving that she 

sustained a disabling work-related back injury on August 

24, 2020[,] that rendered her disabled thereafter. The 

Claim Petition will be denied and dismissed. 

R.R. at 335a.

Because the WCJ determined that Claimant recovered from her workrelated injury on May 27, 2021, and except for her time off for her knee surgery, 

Claimant worked at her full pay rate between her injury, on August 24, 2020, and 

her recovery therefrom, on May 27, 2021, Claimant did not meet her burden of 

proving a loss of earning power from her work-related injury. Accordingly, the WCJ 

properly denied Claimant’s Claim Petition based on Claimant’s failure to prove a 

disability from her work-related injury.5

4 The WCJ’s decision stated “May 10, 2021.” R.R. at 335a. However, given the context 

of the sentence, and the testimony of Claimant and Crescenzo, that date was clearly a typographical 

error. 

5 Claimant also argues that the fact that Claimant became totally disabled on and after June 

23, 2021, is medically and factually unrebutted as Employer did not have Claimant attend another 

IME after she stopped working; therefore, Claimant should have been awarded total disability

benefits on and after June 23, 2021. See Claimant Br. at 13. However, because the WCJ 

determined that Claimant was fully recovered from her work injury on May 27, 2021, the fact that 
6

Next, Claimant argues that the WCJ erred by failing to grant litigation 

costs to Claimant’s attorney. Section 440(a) of the Act provides:

In any contested case where the insurer has contested 

liability in whole or in part, . . . the employe . . . in whose 

favor the matter at issue has been finally determined in 

whole or in part shall be awarded, in addition to the award 

for compensation, a reasonable sum for costs incurred for 

attorney’s fee, witnesses, necessary medical examination, 

and the value of unreimbursed lost time to attend the 

proceedings[.]

77 P.S. § 996(a).6 “[A] claimant must prevail on the contested issue in order to be 

awarded litigation costs.” Lawhorne v. Lutron Elecs. Co., Inc. (Workers’ Comp 

Appeal Bd.), 284 A.3d 239, 244 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (quoting Reyes v. Workers’ 

Comp. Appeal Bd. (AMTEC), 967 A.2d 1071, 1078 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)). Here, 

Claimant did not prevail on the Claim Petition or the Termination Petition. 

Accordingly, the WCJ properly denied litigation costs.

For all of the above reasons, the Board’s order is affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision in this matter.

Claimant stopped working on June 23, 2021, is of no moment. Moreover, the WCJ credited 

Crescenzo’s testimony that the modified-duty work along with her pre-injury job remained 

available to Claimant at her full pay rate even though she stopped working as of June 23, 2021, 

see R.R. at 204-208, as further proof of a lack of disability or loss of earning power. 

6 Added by section 3 of the Act of February 8, 1972, P.L. 25.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cynthia Faulkner, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Ann’s Choice, Inc. (Workers’ :

Compensation Appeal Board), : No. 207 C.D. 2023

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4

th day of March, 2024, the Workers’ Compensation 

Appeal Board’s February 9, 2023 order is affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge