Court Opinion

ID: 9411623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 14:07:41.422393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:32.298973
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Department of Human Services,                  :
                 Petitioner                    :
                                               :
              v.                               :
                                               :
Paul Huffman, Jr. (Workers’                    :
Compensation Appeal Board),                    :    Nos. 921 & 922 C.D. 2022
                   Respondent                  :    Submitted: April 21, 2023

BEFORE:       HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
              HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
              HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                             FILED: July 27, 2023

               In these consolidated cases,1 the Department of Human Services
(Employer) petitions for review of an August 3, 2022 order of the Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the order of a workers’ compensation
judge (WCJ) granting the petitions filed by Paul Huffman, Jr. (Claimant) seeking
reinstatement of total disability benefits. Employer contends that Claimant failed to
meet his burden of proof. Upon review, we affirm the Board’s order.

       1
          Paul Huffman, Jr. (Claimant) suffered two work-related injuries – one on November 18,
2005, and the other on January 21, 2006. A workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) rendered two
identical decisions under separate docket numbers. The Board issued a single decision under two
docket numbers. Board docket number A22-0206 relates to the November 18, 2005 injury, and
Board docket number A22-0207 relates to the January 21, 2006 injury. Two separate petitions for
review were filed with this Court. By order dated October 28, 2022, these cases were consolidated
for disposition.
                                       I. Background
              On November 18, 2005, Claimant, a Youth Development Aide
Supervisor, sustained a work-related injury to his left knee and an injury to his left
jaw temporomandibular joint. On January 21, 2006, Claimant sustained a second
work-related injury, this time to his left eye and right knee. Both of these injuries
were the result of assaults that occurred while Claimant was working in a juvenile
detention center.      In May of 2021, Claimant filed a reinstatement petition
challenging the determination that his disability status changed from total to partial
because it was based on an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) done pursuant to
former Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).2
               The WCJ granted the reinstatement petition based on this Court’s
decision in Whitfield v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tenet Health System
Hahnemann LLC), 188 A.3d 599 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). On appeal, the Board
affirmed. Employer’s appeal to this Court followed.

                                       II. Discussion
              Before this Court,3 Employer argues that Claimant failed to meet his
burden of proving total disability. Employer suggests that the WCJ erred in crediting
the testimony of Claimant’s medical expert, Charles Cole, M.D., that Claimant was
limited to “zero to one hour” of work per day, because that limitation “was just part

       2
         Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by Section 4 of the Act of June 24,
1996, P.L. 350, formerly 77 P.S. § 511.2, repealed by the Act of October 24, 2018, P.L. 714, No.
111. Former Section 306(a.2) was declared unconstitutional in Protz v. Workers’ Compensation
Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), 161 A.3d 827, 830 (Pa. 2017).
       3
         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. Dep’t of Transp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Clippinger), 38 A.3d 1037, 1042
n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

                                               2
of the overall restrictions given by Dr. Cole,” while other portions of his testimony
indicated that Claimant “was NOT totally disabled.” Employer’s Br. at 10. We
discern no merit in Employer’s argument.
             As this Court has frequently stated,
             [i]n workers’ compensation cases, the WCJ is the ultimate
             fact-finder and therefore has exclusive province over
             questions of credibility and evidentiary weight . . . . The
             WCJ may accept or reject the testimony of any witness in
             whole or in part . . . . Further, it is irrelevant whether the
             record contains evidence to support findings other than
             those made by the WCJ; our critical inquiry is whether
             there is evidence to support the findings the WCJ actually
             made.

Smith v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Supervalu Holdings Pa., LLC), 177 A.3d 394,
401 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (en banc) (first citing A & J Builders, Inc. v. Workers’
Comp. Appeal Bd. (Verdi), 78 A.3d 1233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); and then citing
Furnari v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Temple Inland), 90 A.3d 53 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2014)).
             Here, Employer previously submitted an application for supersedeas
seeking to stay its payment obligations pending the outcome of its petitions for
review. In support of its application, Employer asserted the same burden of proof
argument it now presents on the merits. In denying the stay, this Court explained:
             It is well established that a stay is warranted where an
             applicant: (1) makes a strong showing that the applicant
             is likely to prevail on the merits; (2) has shown that
             without the requested relief, the applicant will suffer
             irreparable injury; (3) establishes that issuance of a stay
             will not substantially harm other interested parties in the
             proceedings; and (4) establishes that the issuance of a stay
             will not adversely affect the public interest. Pennsylvania
             Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Process Gas Consumers Grp.
             (Process Gas), 467 A.2d 805, 808-09 (Pa. 1983). The

                                          3
applicant must make a strong showing on each of the
above criteria in order for the stay to issue. Id. at 809.
As to the first criterion of Process Gas, Employer argues
that it is likely to prevail on the merits because Claimant’s
evidence fails to satisfy the standard set forth by this Court
in Whitfield because he is not totally disabled based on the
credible testimony of Claimant’s medical expert, [Dr.]
Cole[]. Specifically, Employer claims that Dr. Cole stated
that Claimant is capable of working with restrictions.
In Whitfield, this Court, citing the Supreme Court’s
decision in Latta v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal
Board (Latrobe Die Casting Co.), 642 A.2d 1083, 1085
(Pa. 1994), stated that when a claimant is seeking to
reinstate benefits currently under suspension, “[a]
claimant is not required to demonstrate with medical
evidence that the work-related injury giving rise to the
benefits continues; a claimant’s testimony to that effect
satisfies the claimant’s burden of proof.” Whitfield, 188
A.3d at 615. The claimant in Whitfield testified that she
remained unable to work, and the employer did not present
any evidence to the contrary. Because the workers’
compensation judge did not make credibility
determinations, this Court remanded and noted that,
pursuant to Latta, if the claimant’s testimony was credited,
she would be able to satisfy her burden of proof . . . .
This case differs from Whitfield in that, in addition to
Claimant testifying, both Claimant and Employer
presented medical evidence. Claimant presented Dr.
Cole’s testimony, and Employer presented the testimony
of Dr. Robert Grob and Dr. Brian Bora. However, the
WCJ concluded that, to the extent that Dr. Grob’s opinions
are inconsistent with Dr. Cole’s opinions, Dr. Grob’s
opinions are rejected. Further, the WCJ rejected Dr.
Bora’s opinions as not competent. Based on the evidence
presented, the WCJ further found that Claimant “is totally
disabled. Claimant’s credible testimony is that he is
totally disabled. The credible medical testimony is that he
can perform works functions for 0 to 1 hour, which is, in
essence, total disability.” (WCJ’s 02/23/2022 Decision,
Finding of Fact No. 43). As the WCJ credited Claimant’s
testimony over any evidence that Employer presented to
                              4
             the contrary, Whitfield, and also credited Dr. Cole’s
             testimony that Claimant was, for all intents and purposes,
             totally disabled, this Court fails to see how the WCJ and
             the Board misapplied Whitfield. In the end, this case
             appears to amount to no more than a dispute over
             credibility determinations, which is a subject outside of
             this Court’s scope of review. See Bloom v. Workmen’s
             Comp. Appeal Bd. (Keystone Pretzel Bakery), 677 A.2d
             1314, 1319 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (this Court’s scope or
             review does not permit the reversal of a workers’
             compensation judge’s credibility determinations).
             In summary, Employer has failed to make as strong
             showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its
             appeal and has thus failed to meet the first criterion of
             Process Gas . . . .

Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Huffman (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.) (Pa. Cmwlth. Nos.
921 & 922 C.D. 2022, filed Nov. 29, 2022), slip op. at 2-4.
             Because Employer simply repeats the same argument we previously
rejected in denying a stay, we likewise reject that argument on the merits.
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order granting Claimant’s reinstatement
petitions.

                                 III. Conclusion
             Based on the foregoing discussion, the order of the Board is affirmed.

                                      __________________________________
                                      CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

                                         5
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Department of Human Services,       :
                 Petitioner         :
                                    :
           v.                       :
                                    :
Paul Huffman, Jr. (Workers’         :
Compensation Appeal Board),         :   Nos. 921 & 922 C.D. 2022
                   Respondent       :

                                ORDER

           AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2023, the order of the Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board dated August 3, 2022 is AFFIRMED.

                                 __________________________________
                                 CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge