Case Name: Jacqueline MATTHEWS, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ELWYN INSTITUTE), Respondent
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2009-03-12
Citations: 967 A.2d 452
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacqueline MATTHEWS, Petitioner v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ELWYN INSTITUTE), Respondent.
Judges: BEFORE: SMITH-RIBNER, Judge and LEAVITT, Judge, and FLAHERTY, Senior Judge.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 967
Pages: 452–460

Head Matter:
Jacqueline MATTHEWS, Petitioner v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ELWYN INSTITUTE), Respondent.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted on Briefs Oct. 24, 2008.
Decided March 12, 2009.
Picard Losier, Philadelphia, for petitioner.
Edward R. Carpenter, Jr., Media, for respondent.
BEFORE: SMITH-RIBNER, Judge and LEAVITT, Judge, and FLAHERTY, Senior Judge.
. A great deal of testimony was focused on the extent of Claimant’s injuries because Claimant had originally claimed that she injured both knees on January 16, 2003. She subsequently stated that the alleged injury to her right knee was in error. At the time she filled out the report of her work injury she had mistakenly written down that both knees were injured.

Opinion:
OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
Jacqueline Matthews (Claimant) petitions for review of an adjudication of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) denying her benefits for an aggravation of a work-related injury. The Board reversed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to award benefits because the Board found that Claimant did not present any evidence that she gave Elwyn Institute (Employer) timely notice of her aggravation. Discerning no error in the Board's decision, we affirm.
Claimant was employed by Employer as a counselor at one of Employer's residential facilities for mentally handicapped persons. On October 31, 2003, Claimant filed a claim petition alleging that on January 16, 2003, she sustained a work-related injury to her left and right knees when a resident became combative and kicked her twice on the same day. It was later clarified by Claimant that she suffered an injury only to her left knee. Claimant sought partial disability from February 22, 2003, through April 20, 2003, and full disability from April 21, 2003, ongoing, when she stopped working. Employer filed an answer denying the allegations.
At her deposition, Claimant testified that she was injured in her left knee on January 16, 2003, for which she first sought treatment on February 27, 2003. She continued to work until April when she was hit again in the left knee by another resident. In April, Claimant underwent outpatient surgery on her left knee and left work. In November 2003, Claimant was diagnosed with a pulmonary embolus, or blood clot, in her lung, which she believed was related to her January 2003 knee injury. On cross-examination, Employer's counsel inquired into other incidents that occurred after she left work in April of 2003. Claimant responded that her knee had been hurt at her sister's house and that on September 9, 2003, while driving "on [her] way to PT," she was involved in an auto accident. Reproduced Record at 23a (R.R.-).
Claimant submitted the deposition testimony of Stewart Gordon, M.D., a board- certified orthopedic surgeon, who first examined Claimant on March 28, 2003. Dr. Gordon recommended surgery for Claimant's left knee, which was done in April. Claimant was progressing well except for two incidents of. swelling that occurred when Claimant was injured at her sister's house and when Claimant was injured in the September 2003 motor vehicle accident. Dr. Gordon testified that according to the medical notes, Claimant sustained a contusion and strain to her left knee and an injury to her back in that automobile accident. He opined that Claimant had fully recovered from her January 2003 work-related injury but that she continued to suffer soreness and tenderness as a result of the motor vehicle accident. Dr. Gordon also noted that Claimant's medical records showed that Claimant developed a pulmonary embolus. On cross-examination, Dr. Gordon stated that the embolus was not related to the January 2003 work injury but, rather, to the automobile accident.
Employer presented the deposition testimony of Gail Foltz, who is employed by the PMA Insurance Group as a disability management coordinator responsible for the long-term and short-term disability programs offered to Employer and to other group policyholders. She testified that Claimant applied for and received both short-term and long-term disability benefits under this program. Foltz confirmed that these disability benefits are provided to employees who are not able to work because of an illness, accident, or injury that is not work-related.
The WCJ granted Claimant's claim petition for a closed period, finding that Claimant had sustained her burden of proving a work-related injury to her left knee from which she had fully recovered as of April 16, 2004. The WCJ found that Claimant had sustained a blood clot as a result of the September 2003 motor vehicle accident but found that this accident was "not related to Claimant's work injury." WCJ Decision of 1/05/05, Finding of Fact ¶ 18.
Both parties appealed. Claimant argued that the WCJ erred in holding her fully recovered as of April 16, 2004. The Board vacated, in part, the WCJ's decision. The Board observed that if Claimant's accident had occurred while en route to treatment for a work injury, injuries she sustained in that accident would be com-pensable "provided that Claimant has met the necessary burdens." Board Opinion at 11, R.R. 240a. Specifically, the Board noted that the injuries sustained in the auto accident were separate and distinct from her January 16, 2003, work injury and that Claimant had the burden of proof on each element of her claim for compensation for injuries sustained in the September auto accident. Id. at n. 11. The Board remanded the case for the WCJ to make "all necessary findings." Id.
On remand, neither party produced any additional evidence, but relied on the record from the initial proceedings. In a decision circulated August 8, 2007, the WCJ found that Claimant's work injury should be expanded to include the re-injury of her left knee, an injury to her back, and a blood clot in her lung, which resulted from the September 2003 motor vehicle accident. The WCJ found Claimant totally disabled and awarded ongoing total disability payments.
Employer appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the WCJ had erred in awarding benefits for the injuries sustained in the automobile accident because Employer had never been notified that Claimant believed that the injuries she sustained in the auto accident were compensable. The Board agreed, finding the record devoid of evidence that Claimant notified Employer that she had suffered an additional work injury on September 9, 2003, at any point during the 120-day notice period prescribed by Section 311 of the Workers' Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 631. The Board reversed the decision of the WCJ, and the present appeal followed.
On appeal, Claimant advances several arguments in support of her claim for workers' compensation benefits for the injuries sustained in the September 2003 accident. Claimant first asserts that Employer did not preserve the issue of its lack of notice that Claimant suffered a work injury in the September 2003 accident because Employer did not raise the issue in its first appeal to the Board. Employer challenged only the WCJ's award of benefits for a closed period. Claimant next contends that she was not required to give Employer notice of the September 9, 2003, work injury because Employer had notice of the January 16, 2003, injury. Finally, Claimant contends that Employer had actual or constructive notice of the September 2003 aggravation.
We begin with Claimant's argument that Employer did not preserve the notice issue. Because the WCJ had determined that Claimant's injury in the auto accident was not work-related, there was no reason for Employer to raise the notice issue to the Board. In its appeal of the WCJ's second decision, however, Employer did raise the issue that Claimant had never given it notice that her injuries suffered in the motor vehicle accident were compensable. See Supplemental Reproduced Record at lb. Accordingly, the notice issue was properly addressed by the Board.
Claimant next argues that notice is not required in this situation. She maintains that because she had provided Employer notice of her January 16, 2003, injury, no further notice was required.
It is well settled that an "aggravation of a pre-existing condition" is deemed a new injury for purposes of the Act. Safety National Casualty Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. (Draper and PMA Insurance Group), 887 A.2d 809, 815 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). It is equally well settled that the claimant bears the burden of establishing each element necessary to support an award of compensation. Jamison v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Gallagher Home Health Services), 955 A.2d 494, 497-98 (Pa. Cmwlth.2008). Notice under Section 311 of the Act is one such element. Where notice of a work injury is not given to the employer within 120 days of its occurrence, the claim for compensation must be denied. Storer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, (ABB), 784 A.2d 829, 832 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). As explained by the Board, the injury Claimant suffered in the auto accident was separate and distinct from her injury of January 16, 2003. Accordingly, she was required to present evidence on each element, including notice to Employer, in order to have her September 9, 2003, injury be held compensable. Claimant has advanced no cogent argument to support her contention that she was excused from the burden of demonstrating that she notified Employer that the injury she suffered on September 9, 2003, was work-related.
Finally, Claimant argues that Employer had imputed notice of her additional injuries. Employer's work rule required employees to complete a Workers' Compensation Injury Report when reporting a work injury, and Claimant had completed these reports in the past when reporting work injuries. Claimant did not testify that the pulmonary embolus was reported on this form, and Employer's risk control specialist testified that there were no work incident reports filed after April 2003, when Claimant stopped working. Claimant argues that Employer had imputed notice through Dr. Gordon, as Employer's panel doctor; Gail Foltz, a PMA employee; and, finally, Employer's counsel in the instant litigation. With respect to Employer's counsel, Claimant explains that she testified about her auto accident in her deposition of February 11, 2004. Although this testimony was not given within the 120 days of the September 9, 2003, accident, Claimant asserts it meets the deadline under the discovery rule.
The content of an employee's notice of a work injury is governed by Section 312 of the Act, which states, in relevant part, that the claimant
. shall inform the employer that a certain employe received an injury, described in ordinary language, in the course of his employment on or about a specified time, at or near a place specified.
Section 312 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 632. For the notice of a work-related injury to be sufficient under Sections 311 and 312, a claimant must also comply with Section 313 of the Act. It provides:
The notice referred to in sections 311 and 312 may be given to the immediate or other superior of the employe, to the employer, or any agent of the employer regularly employed at the place of employment of the injured employe. Knowledge of the occurrence of the injury on the part of any such agents shall be the knowledge of the employer.
77 P.S. § 633 (emphasis added).
If Claimant sought compensation for the injury that occurred on September 9, 2003, she never so stated in her claim petition. Further, her first appeal to the Board did not contain the word "aggravation," and it did not assert an injury date of September 9, 2003, but rather January 16, 2003. The notice requirement in Section 312 of the Act is not onerous, but it does require the employee to communicate the information that he was injured "in the course of his employment on or about a specified time, at or near a place specified." 77 P.S. § 632. Further, this information must be communicated "to the employer, or any agent of the employer regularly employed at the place of employment of the injured employee." Section 313 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 633. Claimant failed on both counts.
During her cross-examination by Employer's counsel, Claimant stated she was "on [her] way to PT" when her auto accident occurred. She did not state that the "PT" was for treatment of her work injury. Claimant did not state that the auto accident was itself work-related. Her entire case was based on the contention that she was not recovered from her January 16, 2003 work injury, not that she suffered a subsequent work injury. "On the way to PT" does not satisfy the notice requirements of Section 312. Even if it did, however, there can be imputed notice only where the notice is given to the employer's "agent" who is one "regularly employed at the place of employment of the injured employee." Section 313 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 633.
Claimant presented no evidence that Dr. Gordon, Ms. Foltz, or counsel for Employer in the present litigation were "agents" of Employer "regularly employed" at the place of employment. Id. In the absence of any such evidence, Claimant's imputed notice argument must fail.
For all the above-explained reasons, we affirm the Board.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2009, the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board dated June 27, 2008, in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
. It states in relevant part:
Unless the employer shall have knowledge of the occurrence of the injury, or unless the employe or someone in his behalf, or some of the dependents or someone in their behalf, shall give notice thereof to the employer within twenty-one days after the injury, no compensation shall be due until such notice be given, and, unless such notice be given within one hundred and twenty days after the occurrence of the injury, no compensation shall be allowed. However, in cases in which the nature of the injury or its relationship to the employment is not known to the employe, the time for giving notice shall not begin to run until the employe knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, of the existence of the injury and its possible relationship to his employment.
77 P.S. § 631 (emphasis added).
. This Court's review is limited to determining whether an error of law or a constitutional violation was committed or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial, competent evidence. Myers v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (University of Pennsylvania and Alexsis, Inc), 782 A.2d 1108, 1110 n. 1 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001).
. In cases where the cause of the injury or its relationship to the employment is not known to the employee, Section 311 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 631, contains a discovery provision which provides that the time for giving notice shall not begin to run until the employee knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, of the existence of the injury and its possible relationship to his employment. Storer, 784 A.2d at 831-32. Claimant's invocation of the discovery rule here is problematic. Claimant sought medical treatment for the back and knee injuries she sustained in the auto accident. She knew immediately of these injuries, but she did not report the injuries to Employer as work-related.
. Contrary to the dissent's assertion that Employer waived its lack of notice, it is Claimant that waived the issue that her auto accident injuries were compensable. Employer de fended against her claim petition with respect to her January 16, 2003, injury, which was the only injury at issue in the proceeding.
. Notably, none of these persons ever stated that they understood that Claimant had stated that the auto accident was a compensable, work-related injury. Ms. Foltz worked for PMA, and she authorized the payment of disability to Claimant under the policy providing disability for non-work related absences from work. Claimant herself testified that she "filed for disability." R.R. 25a. Dr. Gordon testified as follows:
Q. And, Doctor, in terms of the history that you took from her, the work injury of January 16 is the only date that she ever told you she sustained a work injury?
A. Correct.
R.R. 60a. Finally, Employer's counsel who took Claimant's deposition about her January 16, 2003, injury, did not receive notice. Claimant did not state at this deposition that she suffered a work injury on September 9, 2003. She stated the blood clot was caused by her January 16, 2003, injury.