Court Opinion

ID: 9748655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:09:09.764293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:38.144532
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in part and respectfully dissent in part to the majority’s opinion. I concur that we should remand to the Board to remand to the WCJ for a determination as to when the West Virginia payments ceased. However, I dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the portion of the Board’s order providing that Claimant failed to prove by unequivocal medical testimony that his diabetes insipidus was work-related.
The WCJ credited Dr. Walczak’s testimony and found that Claimant’s diabetes insipidus resulted from Claimant’s electrocution at work. The Board and the majority found that Dr. Walczak’s testimony was equivocal because she stated “it is well known that head injuries can cause diabetes insipidus” and that the trauma Claimant received during the electrocution “could well be” the cause of the diabetes insipidus and that the trauma “probably” caused Claimant’s condition.
*772Where there is no obvious causal connection between an injury and the alleged cause, the claimant must establish that connection with unequivocal medical testimony. The question of whether medical testimony is equivocal is a question of law and reviewable by this Court. In conducting a review of the medical testimony, the medical witness’ entire testimony must be taken as a whole and a final decision should not rest on a few words taken out of the entire testimony’s context. Lewis v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 508 Pa. 360, 498 A.2d 800 (1985).
In G & B Packing v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Lindsay), 653 A.2d 1353 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995), vacated on other grounds sub nom, JFC Temps, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Lindsay), 545 Pa. 149, 680 A.2d 862 (1996), the claimant’s medical witness, Dr. Michael Sams (Sams), testified regarding the cause of the claimant’s injury. Although Dr. Sams opined, “A causal relationship, I think, exists,” “I believe a causal relationship exists in this case,” and “there is a good probability”, the WCJ found this testimony to be unequivocal. The Board affirmed. G & B, 653 A.2d at 1356. This Court also found that the testimony in its entirety was unequivocal. G & B, 653 A.2d at 1358.
Here, as in G & B, Dr. Walczak testified using less than completely positive words to describe the relationship between Claimant’s electrocution and his diabetes insipidus. Taken as a whole, I believe that Dr. Walczak unequivocally testified that the work incident caused the diabetes. Particularly here, because the doctor opined that “... it is well known that head injuries can cause diabetes insipidus.” And Claimant did not have a previous diagnosis of diabetes insipidus or any head injuries prior to the injury in August, 1995. Given that the WCJ found Dr. Walczak credible, I believe that substantial evidence supports the WCJ’s decision and would reverse the Board on this issue.