Court Opinion

ID: 9648265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:12:10.883556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:58.068052
License: Public Domain

FRIEDMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
First, I would have initially addressed the employer’s contention that Claimant failed to give timely notice of the carpal tunnel syndrome. If employer’s contention proved correct, there would be no need to address the other issues.
However, I also have a more fundamental disagreement with the majority’s analysis. I would affirm the Board’s conclusion that Employer failed to meet its burden of proving a change in Claimant’s physical condition, as required by Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 516 Pa. 240, 532 A.2d 374 (1987). The majority cites our recent decision in Harrell v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Circle HVAC), 151 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 8, 616 A.2d 1051, petition of allowance of appeal denied, 532 Pa. 645, 614 A.2d 1142 (1992) for the proposition that “there is no requirement that an employer establish that a claimant’s physical condition has changed in order to meet its burden of proving that the claimant’s disability decreased.” (Maj. Op. at 736.) This statement is not consistent with Kachinski1 and is not found in Harrell although a review of *647Harrell’s facts might lead to such a conclusion. I do not believe that Harrell, which is an opinion of this court, should be read in such a way as to contradict the Supreme Court’s teaching in Kachinski. Therefore, I disagree with the majority’s statement of the law and its application to this case. I would affirm the Board.
Accordingly, I dissent.

. Unora v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 377 Pa. 7, 104 A.2d 104 (1954), relied upon in Kachinski, contains the following quote from Professor Arthur *647Larson’s work on Workmen’s Compensation Law (Vol. 2, Sec. 57, 10, pp. 2, 3):
... the disability concept is a blend of two ingredients, ... the first ingredient is disability in the medical or physical sense, as evidenced by obvious loss of members or by medical testimony that the claimant simply cannot make the necessary muscular movements and exertions; the second ingredient is do facto inability to earn wages, as evidenced by proof that claimant has not in fact earned anything.
Id. 377 Pa. at 12, 104 A.2d at 107. Kachinski required that evidence on medical condition and earning ability be produced separately.