Court Opinion

ID: 9770030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:13:32.116886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:32.019916
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael E. Lockhart,                :
                                    :
                         Petitioner :
                                    :
           v.                       : No. 18 C.D. 2022
                                    : Submitted: February 3, 2023
Universal Well Services, Inc.,      :
(Workers’ Compensation              :
Appeal Board),                      :
                                    :
                         Respondent :

BEFORE:       HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
              HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
              HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                            FILED: August 29, 2023

              Michael E. Lockhart (Claimant) petitions for review of the order of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the decision of a workers’
compensation judge (WCJ) that granted the Petition to Modify Compensation
Benefits (Modification Petition) of Universal Well Services, Inc. (Employer) based
on an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) and modified Claimant’s benefits from
total to partial disability status.      Claimant challenges as unconstitutional the
retroactive application of Act 111 of 2018 (Act 111), which added Section 306(a.3)
of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WC and Act, respectively),1 altering the criteria

       1
         Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by the Act of October 24, 2018, P.L.
714, No. 111 (Act 111), 77 P.S. §511.3.
for determining a claimant’s disability status, providing that an impairment rating of
less than 35% constitutes a partial disability, and providing a credit for disability
payments already made. Claimant maintains that Act 111 cannot be constitutionally
applied to workers whose injuries occurred before October 24, 2018, the effective date
of Act 111, and that Act 111 constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative
authority. We affirm.
             Pursuant to a June 27, 2016 Medical-Only Notice of Compensation
Payable, Claimant suffered an injury in the nature of a low back strain on April 25,
2016, while in the course of his employment with Employer. By an April 26, 2018
WCJ decision granting Claimant’s Claim and Penalty Petitions, and denying
Employer’s Termination Petition, the injury was expanded to a “lumbar sprain/strain
resulting in aggravation of underlying degenerative spinal stenosis.” Reproduced
Record (RR) at 161a. Claimant’s WC benefits were also modified to total disability
benefits “commencing on the date after his last wage-earning day of employment
with Employer.” Id. The Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision on appeal.
             On February 20, 2019, Employer filed the instant Modification Petition
based on an IRE following an examination by Thomas Freenock, M.D. (Dr.
Freenock), on January 21, 2019. See RR at 8a-10a. In a February 26, 2019 Answer
to the Modification Petition, Claimant alleged, inter alia, that the IRE that Dr.
Freenock performed is unconstitutional, and the matter should be stayed pending the
disposition of an original jurisdiction matter then pending before this Court. See id.
at 12a.
             Ultimately, on May 13, 2019, the WCJ issued a decision denying and
dismissing the Modification Petition because

             [i]n Protz [v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board
             (Derry Area School District), 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017)],
                                          2
                the Supreme Court clearly and precisely set forth
                numerous reasons and concerns in determining that the
                IRE process as previously established by the General
                Assembly in prior Section 306(a.2) of the Act[2] was
                deemed to be unconstitutional. Based on the precedent
                established by the Supreme Court in Protz[,] this [WCJ]
                finds that Act 111 fails to address those concerns.
RR at 31a. However, on appeal, the Board vacated the WCJ’s order and remanded
the matter to the WCJ “for a determination on the merits of the Modification
Petition. . . .” Id. at 45a.3
                On remand, following hearings and the reception of evidence, the WCJ
issued a decision in which he made the following relevant findings of fact: (1)
Claimant received in excess of 104 weeks of total disability benefits prior to the date
of the IRE; (2) Dr. Freenock credibly testified that Claimant had reached maximum
medical improvement because further treatment was not expected to significantly
improve his condition; and (3) Dr. Freenock credibly testified that Claimant’s whole-
person impairment was 7% under the Sixth Edition of the American Medical
Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Second Printing
(Guides). See RR at 164a-66a. Specifically, the WCJ found:

                19. Based on the evidence presented by [] Employer, []
                Employer has shown that Claimant’s whole[-]person
                impairment relative to the work injury was less than 35%.
                Because [] Employer did not obtain the IRE within 60 days
                after Claimant received 104 weeks of total disability
                benefits, Employer is only entitled to convert Claimant
                from total to partial disability status as of the date of the
                IRE, that is January 21, 2019.

       2
           Added by the Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350, formerly, 77 P.S. §511.2, repealed by Act
111.

       3
           On December 2, 2020, the matter was reassigned to another WCJ. See RR at 74a.
                                                3
Id. at 166a.4
                 Accordingly, the WCJ issued an order granting Employer’s
Modification Petition, and modifying Claimant’s WC benefits status from total to
partial disability as of January 21, 2019. See RR at 169a. The Board affirmed the
WCJ’s decision on appeal, and Claimant filed this petition for review of the Board’s
order.5
                 Claimant first generically argues on appeal that Section 3(2) of Act
111,6 which provides Employer with a credit for all partial disability benefits that
had been previously paid, violates his property rights, and his constitutional rights
to due process and equal protection. However, as this Court explained in an identical
circumstance:

                       [The c]laimant’s first constitutional argument
                 baldly asserts, without supporting references to legal
                 authority or fact, that the partial disability credit provision
                 in Section 3(2) of Act 111 unconstitutionally deprives him

       4
           The WCJ also noted that “[w]hile Claimant’s counsel raised issues as to the
constitutionality of the IRE statu[t]e and process, I cannot address these issues. As a WCJ, I have
limited authority and jurisdiction.” RR at 167a.

       5
        Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated,
whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law, and whether the necessary findings of fact
are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S.
§704.

       6
           Section 3(2) of Act 111 states:

                 (2) For the purposes of determining the total number of weeks of
                 partial disability compensation payable under [S]ection 306(a.3)(7)
                 of the [A]ct, an insurer shall be given credit for weeks of partial
                 disability compensation paid prior to the effective date of this
                 paragraph.

77 P.S. §511.3, Historical and Statutory Notes.
                                                  4
of property rights, and violates his constitutional rights to
due process and equal protection.

       Rule 2119(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure requires, in pertinent part, that an
appellate brief include “such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
This Court has repeatedly held that we will not consider
the merits of an issue that is not properly raised and
developed in a brief. Am[erican] Rock Mech[anics], Inc.
v. Workers’ Comp[ensation] Appeal B[oard] (Bik &
Lehigh Concrete Tech[nologies]), 881 A.2d 54, 56 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2005). See also Commonwealth v. Rompilla, 983
A.2d 1207, 1210 (Pa. 2009) (appellant’s failure to
adequately develop its arguments or support its bald
assertions with sufficient citation to legal authority
impedes meaningful judicial review of its claims).

       [The c]laimant’s purported constitutional argument
consists of two paragraphs, the first of which simply
relates to various provisions of Act 111. The second
paragraph provides as follows:

      The new language in Section [3] of [the] Act,
      which was also included in Act 111,
      represents an unconstitutional deprivation of
      property rights. Act 111 permits the
      [e]mployer to take a credit for partial
      disability benefits that were paid prior to the
      effective date of Act 111. By providing for
      such a credit, Act 111 violates the due
      process and equal protections [sic] provisions
      of the Pennsylvania and United States
      Constitutions.

[]This generic reference to property rights and
constitutional due process and equal protection provisions
hardly constitutes the development of an argument and
utterly fails to comport with the requirements of Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a). [The c]laimant’s argument is therefore deemed
waived as insufficiently developed, and we will not
address it further.

                             5
Clapper v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board)
(Pa. Cmwlth., No. 517 C.D. 2021, filed April 13, 2022), slip op. at 4-5 (footnotes
omitted).7 Because Claimant raises the exact same deficient argument in support of
his claim in the instant appeal, it is “deemed waived as insufficiently developed, and
we will not address it further.” Id., slip op. at 5.
                 Finally, Claimant asserts that Act 111 violates the Non-Delegation
Clause of article II, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.8 However, as we
previously explained:

                        We disagree with [the c]laimant, as we have
                 previously reviewed, and rejected, this argument in
                 Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, 219 A.3d 306,
                 316 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019), affirmed per curiam (Pa., No. 88
                 MAP 2019, filed August 18, 2020), holding that the
                 General Assembly’s enactment of Act 111 did not violate
                 article II, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as it
                 merely adopted the existing set of standards set forth in the
                 [Guides].
Clapper, slip op. at 6.
                 Accordingly, the Board’s order is affirmed.

                                              MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

       7
           See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1)-(2) (“As used in this rule, ‘non-precedential decision’ refers to
. . . an unreported memorandum opinion of the Commonwealth Court filed after January 15, 2008.
Non-precedential decisions . . . may be cited for their persuasive value.”).

       8
           Pa. Const. art. II, §1.
                                                 6
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael E. Lockhart,                :
                                    :
                         Petitioner :
                                    :
           v.                       : No. 18 C.D. 2022
                                    :
Universal Well Services, Inc.,      :
(Workers’ Compensation              :
Appeal Board),                      :
                                    :
                         Respondent :

                                 ORDER

            AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2023, the order of the Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board dated December 28, 2021, is AFFIRMED.

                                   __________________________________
                                   MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge