IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sonia Reynolds, : Petitioner :

: v. : No. 1526 C.D. 2019
: Submitted: February 28, 2020 Workers’ Compensation Appeal : Board (Holy Redeemer Health : Systems), : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON FILED: August 19, 2020

Sonia Reynolds (Claimant), pro se , petitions for review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board), dated September 10, 2019. The
B oard affirmed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), gr anting the termination petition filed by Holy Redeemer Health Systems (Employer). For the
reasons set forth belo w, we affirm the Board’s order. Claimant worked for Employer as a food service hostess at St. Joseph’ s Manor Nursing Home. On September 22, 20 10, 1 Claimant sustained a work

- related injury

1 Based upon our review of the record, there appears to be a discrepancy regarding the date on which Claimant sustained her work

- related left shoul der injury

— i.e. , August 1, 2010, or September 22, 2010. As the exact date on which Claimant sustained her work

- related left shoulder injury does not affect our analysis of the issue presente d by Claimant on appeal, we will not address this discrepancy in any further detail, and we will refer to September, 22, 2010

— the date identified by the parties in their briefs to this Court and the date most frequently used in the record to describe such injury

— as the date of Claimant’s work

- related left shoulder injury.2

to her left shoulder

. Employer accepted liability for a left shoulder strain pursuant
to a medical

- only Notice of Compensation Payable. Thereafter, on August 3, 2017, Employer filed a termination petition, as serting that Claimant had fully recovered
from her work

- related left shoulder injury as of July 26, 2017. In support of its termination p etition, Employer presented the medical report of Jeffrey Malumed, M.D ., who performed an independent medical examinati on (IME) of Claimant on July 26, 2017. (Certified Record (C.R.), Item No. 16 , at 1 .) As part of his IME, Dr. Malumed obtained a history, reviewed Claimant’s medical records, and performed a physical examination. ( Id. at 1

- 3.) Dr. Malumed explained
that his physical examinat ion of Claimant’s left shoulder was “ essentially norm al ”

— i.e. , Claimant had no objective findings but reported subjective complaints of pain

. ( Id. at 3.) He also explained that m agnetic resonance imaging of Claimant’s left
shoulder , both from before and after he had performed a prior IME of Claimant, revealed a partial thickness rotator cuff tear and multiple arthritic changes. ( Id. at 1, 3.)
Dr. Malumed indicated that Dean Trevlyn, M.D. , performed surgery on Claimant’s left shoulde r on O ctober 3, 2014. ( Id. at 2.) During surgery, Dr. Trevlyn discovered a small partial thickness rotator cuff tear and longstanding degenerative
arthritic conditions , including degenerative labral tears and a tear of the biceps
muscle

. ( Id. at 2

- 3.) D r. Trevlyn performed a subacromial decompression and debridement of the biceps muscle tear and a mini open rotator cuff repair. ( Id. at 2.)
Dr. Malumed further indicated that Claimant made a full and complete recovery following surgery and did not requi re any further medical treatment for her
work

- related left shoulder injury

. ( Id. at 3

- 4

. ) Ultimately, Dr. Malumed opined that3

Claimant had fully recovered from her work

- related left shoulder injury and was capable of returning to her pre

- injury position with Employer. ( Id. at 4 .) In opposition to Employer’s termination p etition, Claimant presented the
medical report of William C. Murphy, D.O., who performed an examination of Claimant on October 31, 2017. (C.R., Item No. 13, at 1.) At th e time of the
examination , Claimant reported persistent left shoulder pain that radia ted into her
neck area and was aggravated by overhead lifting , pushing , pulling, or carrying. ( Id. )
D r. Murphy performed a physical examination of Claimant’s le ft shoulde r, which revealed restricted and painful range of motion, tenderness upon palpation of the left rotator cuff insertion, acromioclavicular joint, subacromial bursa, and bicipital

gro o ve , a positive impingement test , and a positive Hawkins maneuver. ( Id. at 2.)
Dr. M urphy indicated that his diagnoses relative to Claimant’s left shoulder and the September 22, 2010 work

- related incident include d a strain/sprain, a partial rotator cuff tear, a biceps tear, and an aggravation of degenerative joint disease. ( Id

. at 3.) Dr. Murphy opined that Claimant “remains symptomatic regarding her left shoulder injury and has never fully recovered despite conservative management, injections[,] and surgical intervention.” ( Id. ) Dr. Murphy believed that the injury to
Claiman t’s left shoulder was permanent and that the prognosis for a full recovery was poor. ( Id. at 3

- 4.) He placed Claimant under perman en t restrictions of no repetitive overhead lifting, pushing, pulling, or carrying with her left upper extremity
and no lifti ng greater than twenty pounds on an occasional basis and ten pounds on a frequent basis with her left upper extremity. ( Id. at 4.) Dr. Murphy indicated that Claimant would require further treatment for her left shoulder injury, including corticosteroid injec tions for inflammation control and physical therapy for
exacerbations

. ( Id. ) He further indicated that, if Claimant co uld not manage her4

symptoms with conservative treatment and injections, Claimant would be a
candidate for a left shoulder total joint arthroplasty. ( Id. ) By decision and order dated April 27, 2018, the WCJ granted Employer’s termination petition. In so d oing, the WCJ summarized the medical experts’ opinions and made the following credibility determinations:

8. This [WCJ] has thoroughly reviewed the evidence

. . . presented by both parties in this matter. Dr.

. . . Malumed is credible and convincing that based on his physical examination of . . . Claimant [ and his] review of diagnostic tests and medical records, . . . Claimant had fully recovered from her employment injuries in September of 2010 to her left shoulder as of July 26, 2017. Dr. Malumed’s opi nions are supporte d by the factors he considered. 9. Dr. . . . Murphy is not convincing that Claimant has any residuals that would disable or require medical attention as it relates to the September 22, 2010 injury. This [WCJ] has accepted the opinions o f Dr. Malumed based on consistency with medical records and diagnostic tests as well as his physical exam[ination] of . . . Claimant. (WCJ’s Decision at 4.) Based on these credibility determinations, the WCJ concluded that Employer met its burden of provi ng that Claimant had fully recovered
from her work

- related left shoulder injury as of July 26, 2017. Claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed the WCJ’s decision. Claimant then pet itioned this
Court for review. On appeal, 2 it is difficult to discern Claimant’s precise argument. It appears that Claimant is attempting to argue that the Board erred by affirming the WCJ ’ s

2 Our review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and whether constitutional rights were violated. Combine v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Nat’l Fuel Gas Di strib. Corp.) , 954 A.2d 776, 778 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), appeal denied , 967 A.2d 961 (Pa. 2009).5

decision to grant Employer’s termination p etition because there is not substantial

e vidence of record to support the WCJ’s finding th at Claimant had fully recovered
from the work

- related injury to her left shoulder

. 3 In response, Employer contends that the Board properly affirmed the WCJ’s decision because D r. Malumed’s opinion that Claimant had fully recovered from her work

- related left shoulder injury
and was capable of returning to her pre

- injury position with Employer without
restriction s constitutes substantial evidence to support the WCJ’s finding of full

recovery

. In workers’ compensation proceedings, the WCJ is the ultimate fi nder of fact.
Williams v. Worke rs’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (USX Corp.

- Fairless Works) , 862 A.2d 137, 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). As fact

- finder, matters of credibility, conflicting medical evidence, and evidentiary weight are within the WCJ’s exclusive province. I d. If the WCJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, they are binding on appeal. Agresta v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Borough of Mechanicsburg)
, 850 A.2d 890, 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). It is irrelevant whether there is evidence to support cont rary findings; the relevant inquiry is whether substantial evidence supports the WCJ’s necessary findings. Hoffmaster v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Senco Prods., Inc.) , 721 A.2d 1152, 1155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). To succeed in a termination petition, the empl oyer bears the burden to prove that the claimant’s disability has ceased and/or that any current disability is unrelated to the claimant’s work injury. Jones v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (J.C. Penney Co.) , 747 A.2d 430, 432 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied , 7 64 A.2d 1074 (Pa. 2000).

3 In her brief to this Court, C laimant sets forth numerous facts and allegations that appear to be outside of the record and /or not relevant to this appeal

— e.g. , injuries and treatment to parts of her body other than the accepted left shoulder strain that is the subject of this appeal. We will not address these extraneous facts and allegations in this opinion

.6

An employer may satisfy this burden by presenting unequivocal and competent medical evidence of the claimant’s full recovery from h er work

- related injuries. Koszowski v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Greyhound Lines, Inc.) , 595 A.2 d 697, 699 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). Furthermore, in order to terminate benefits, an employer must prove that all of a claimant’s work

- related injuries have ceased. Central Park Lodge v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Robinson)
, 718 A.2d 368, 370 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998 ). Here, the WCJ’s finding that Claimant had fully recovered from her
work

- related left shoulder injury as of July 26, 2017, is supported by substantial
evidence. Dr. Malumed credibly opined that Claimant had fully recovered from her
work

- related left sho ulder injury as of July 26, 2017, the date of his IME of Claimant,
and that Claimant was capable of returning to her pre

- injury position with Employer.
We stress that it does not matter that Dr. Murphy’s opinions could have supported a contrary finding

— i. e. , that Claimant had not fully recovered from her work

- related left shoulder injury and required further medical treatment in connection therewith

. As an appellate court, our only inquiry is whether there is substantial evidence of record to support the WCJ’s finding of full recovery

. Hoffmaster , 721 A.2d at 1155.
It is within the WCJ ’s purview , as the ultimate fact

- finder, to credit Dr. Malumed’s opinion over Dr. Murphy’s opinion , which he did . For these reasons, we cannot
conclude that the Board erred by affirming the WCJ’s decision to grant Employer’s termination petition. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sonia Reynolds, : Petitioner :

: v. : No. 1526 C.D. 2019
: Workers’ Compensation Appeal : Board (Holy Redeemer Health : Systems), : Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, thi s 19 th day of August , 20 20 , the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is hereby AFFIRMED.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge