Court Opinion

ID: 9389048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 14:07:55.142969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:24.220021
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bobby Hampton,                          :
                  Petitioner            :
                                        :
            v.                          :
                                        :
A1 Environmental and Safety TR          :
(Workers’ Compensation Appeal           :
Board),                                 :   No. 975 C.D. 2021
                 Respondent             :   Submitted: February 3, 2023

BEFORE:     HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
            HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
            HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                        FILED: April 24, 2023

            Bobby Hampton (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the
Workers’ Compensation (WC) Appeal Board’s (Board) August 4, 2021 order
affirming the WC Judge’s (WCJ) decision that denied Claimant’s Claim Petition for
WC (Claim Petition). Claimant presents one issue for this Court’s review: whether
the WCJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. After review, this Court
affirms.
            On April 18, 2019, A1 Environmental and Safety TR (Employer) issued
a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable acknowledging that on March 5,
2019, Claimant sustained an electric shock during the course and scope of his
employment with Employer. Employer paid Claimant WC benefits at the weekly
rate of $800.00 beginning on March 6, 2019. On May 1, 2019, Employer issued a
Notice Stopping Temporary Compensation as of April 3, 2019. Also on May 1,
2019, Employer issued a Notice of WC Denial, therein denying that Claimant
sustained an electric shock during the course and scope of his employment on March
5, 2019. On May 17, 2019, Claimant filed the Claim Petition alleging that on March
5, 2019, he sustained an electrocution injury, cervical radiculitis, lumbar radiculitis,
left rotator cuff injury, left leg pain, headaches, and cervical, lumbar, and thoracic
sprain/strain during the course and scope of his employment as a laborer for
Employer. Claimant sought total disability WC benefits from March 5, 2019, and
ongoing. Employer timely filed an Answer to the Claim Petition denying the
material allegations therein.
               The WCJ held hearings on June 20 and October 1, 2019, and January
28 and February 11, 2020. On August 4, 2020, the WCJ denied Claimant’s Claim
Petition, concluding that Claimant failed to meet his burden of proving that he
sustained a work-related injury on March 5, 2019. Claimant appealed to the Board.
On August 4, 2021, the Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision. Claimant appealed to
this Court.1
               Claimant argues that the WCJ’s determination that he did not suffer a
work injury was not supported by substantial and competent medical evidence and
was not well reasoned as a matter of law.
               Initially, “a claimant seeking [WC] benefits via [a] claim petition
carries the burden of proof of establishing two things: (1) he or she was injured
while in the course of employment[;] and (2) the injury resulted in a loss of earning

       1
         “[This Court’s] review determines whether there has been a violation of constitutional
rights, whether errors of law have been committed, whether [B]oard procedures were violated, or
whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Bryn Mawr
Landscaping Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cruz-Tenorio), 219 A.3d 1244, 1252 n.5 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2019).

                                              2
power.” Cruz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kennett Square Specialties), 99 A.3d
397, 407 (Pa. 2014) (emphasis added).

            “It is well established that the WCJ is the ultimate fact[-
            ]finder and is empowered to determine witness credibility
            and evidentiary weight. The WCJ, therefore, is free to
            accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of
            any witness, including medical witnesses.” Griffiths v.
            Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72,
            76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). In a substantial evidence
            challenge,
                it is irrelevant whether the record contains
                evidence to support findings other than those
                made by the WCJ; the critical inquiry is whether
                there is evidence to support the findings actually
                made. . . . We review the entire record to
                determine if it contains evidence a reasonable
                mind might find sufficient to support the WCJ’s
                findings. . . . If the record contains such evidence,
                the findings must be upheld even though the record
                contains conflicting evidence.
            Lahr Mech. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Floyd), 933
            A.2d 1095, 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (citations omitted).
            This inquiry requires that we “view the evidence in the
            light most favorable to the prevailing party and give [that
            party] the benefit of all inferences reasonably deduced
            from the evidence.” Edwards v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal
            Bd. (Epicure Home Care, Inc.), 134 A.3d 1156, 1161-62
            (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

Columbia Cnty. Comm’rs v. Rospendowski (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 286 A.3d
436, 445-46 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (emphasis added).
            Moreover, “[a]n appellate tribunal must view the WCJ’s reasoning as
a whole and may overturn a credibility determination only if it is arbitrary and
capricious, so fundamentally dependent on a misapprehension of material facts,
or so otherwise flawed, as to render it irrational.” W. Penn Allegheny Health

                                         3
Sys., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cochenour), 251 A.3d 467, 475 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2021) (emphasis added).
               Here, Claimant testified that on March 5, 2019, while working as a
laborer for Employer at the Willow Grove Mall demolishing a JC Penney store,
Employer instructed him to clean the area. Claimant testified that, while doing so,
he attempted to grab a hose and spray water into the air to get rid of the asbestos in
the air. Specifically, Claimant related:

               Q. Could you tell us what is [sic] happened while you were
               carrying out that job assignment?
               A. . . . .
               I had [] tried to grab the water hose that we were using to
               spray, because I was sweeping and the dust -- is after [sic]
               I was done moving everything over, I was going [to] take
               a water hose and spray the area, spray the area [sic] --
               spray water up in the air so the dust can come down.
               Q. What happened when you went to pick up what you
               thought was a water hose?
               A. It wasn’t a water hose. I got jolted for maybe five or
               six seconds and I felt it going up my spine and things, you
               know, I had my gloves on and I’m screaming, and there
               was a guy named Joe[2] behind me, maybe roughly seven
               feet and when I did get off of the hose -- yo, that’s [sic]
               shot me [sic] and electrocuted me, this, that and the third.
               I went to go find where the cord was going or what it was,
               and when I walked down I looked and it was a positive
               connection from the outlets lying in maybe three, four
               inches of water. It was smoking. Then I went and looked
               over and I saw the superintendent, Austin [Myers
               (Austin)3]. I said Austin, and I yelled at him, he was over

       2
          Joe’s last name does not appear in the record, nor is there any further mention of Joe in
the record.
        3
          This Court refers to Austin by his first name to be consistent with the quoted witnesses’
testimonies.

                                                4
               there talking to the welders and things. I said this thing
               shocked the mess out of me. . . .

Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 25a-27a.
               However, Employer’s supervisor, Jose Vargas (Vargas) testified, in
relevant part:

               Q[.] Can you explain how you came to interact with
               [Claimant] regarding his alleged injury?
               A[.] [Claimant] was told to go and push some water out of
               the way that it was piling up. And he came across a cable
               that he saw that it was smoking, and when he saw that, he
               immediately looked up, and he saw the superintendent that
               [sic] it wasn’t [sic], he wasn’t too far away, maybe 50-60
               feet away. And he, you know, notified him and told him
               that the cable was smoking and it was in a water puddle.
               So immediately we secured the area. We let the subs know
               that, you know, whose cable it was. What was going on.
               And they went and took care of that so it can be safe to
               work in that area again.

R.R. at 335a.
               Further, Employer’s supervisor, Orlando Irizarry (Orlando)4 recalled,
inter alia:
               Q[.] Did you interact with [Claimant] with regard to his
               allegation of a work injury on March 5, 2019?
               A[.] After the fact, yes.
               Q[.] Okay. How did that interaction come to be?
               A[.] Well, a superintendent came to me and told me about
               the incident, and that’s when I confronted [Claimant] and
               asked him what happened.
               Q[.] Who is the superintendent, do you remember his
               name?

       4
        This Court refers to Orlando by his first name to be consistent with the quoted witnesses’
testimonies and the quoted portions of the WCJ’s decision.
                                                5
             A[.] That would be Austin.
             Q[.] Is he with [Employer], or with another company?
             A[.] He was with the other company, our contractor.
             Q[.] Okay. And you spoke to [Claimant] you said?
             A[.] Yes.
             Q[.] Okay. Did you specifically ask him whether he was
             injured?
             A[.] Yes.
             Q[.] What did he tell you?
             A[.] He briefly told me he had grabbed a cord and that he
             thought he had got shocked, but he was okay. I asked him
             if he wanted to go get checked out. He said, no, he’s fine.
             That was the end of it.

R.R. at 364a.
             Armando A. Mendez, M.D. (Dr. Mendez), who performed an
Independent Medical Examination (IME) of Claimant on June 23, 2019, testified, in
relevant part:

             Q. And based upon the records you reviewed, your
             examination findings, and history you took from
             [Claimant], did you have an opinion as to whether the
             [March 5, 2019] work incident resulted in any orthopedic
             injuries?
             A. I did. And that opinion was that I could not come up
             with any orthopedic diagnosis that I felt was
             reasonable and related to the incident of March 5th of
             2019.
             Q. I just want to address the specific injuries that
             [C]laimant alleges and ask you to comment as to whether
             you believe the [March 5, 2019] work incident caused
             those injuries. The first alleged injury is cervical,
             thoracic, and lumbar sprains and strains. Do you have
             an opinion on causation as to those injuries?

                                          6
             A. I do have an opinion. I do not see that there is any
             support for those diagnoses related to this incident.
             Q. Do you believe the [March 5, 2019] work incident
             resulted in cervical radiculitis?
             A. I do not.
             ....
             Q. Do you believe the [March 5, 2019] work incident
             resulted in lumbar radiculitis?
             A. I do not.
             ....
             Q. And do you believe the [March 5, 2019] work incident
             resulted in a left rotator cuff injury?
             A. I do not.
             ....
             Q. Do you believe the [March 5, 2019] work incident
             resulted in any injury whatsoever to the left lower
             extremity?
             A. I do not.

R.R. at 158a-160a (emphasis added).
             Bryan De Souza, M.D. (Dr. De Souza), who performed an IME of
Claimant on July 12, 2019, testified, in pertinent part:

             Q. Okay. And, doctor, based upon your examination
             findings, your review of the available medical records and
             the history you obtained from [Claimant], did you develop
             any opinions as to a neurologic diagnosis as it pertains to
             the alleged March 5, 2019 date of injury?
             A. Yes.
             Q. And what is your opinion in that regard?
             A. It’s my opinion that [Claimant] reported that, on March
             5[], [2019,] he had touched an electrical wire. However,

                                          7
               the -- his subjective symptoms, his reported symptoms of
               numbness and pain, did not follow any anatomical or
               physiological pattern to account for his symptoms. So,
               there was no objective evidence neurologically of an
               injury. I went on to check my other -- as I pointed out in
               the records, again, not only was there no evidence of an
               injury on the examination, but the testing also didn’t
               support that there was any evidence of an injury. The
               -- and that the pattern that he was complaining about did
               not follow any medical reason of an anatomical or
               physiological nature. So, it was my opinion, based upon
               that [] -- that he -- that I did not see any evidence of an
               injury related to what he said he did, picking up a wire.
               Q. In any of the medical records that you reviewed, was
               there any documentation of objective testing of any kind
               to corroborate an electrocution injury?
               A. No.

R.R. at 223a-225a (emphasis added).
               The WCJ determined:

               Based on this [WCJ’s] observation of Claimant’s
               demeanor while testifying and hearing his testimony[,5] in
               addition to careful review and consideration of his
               deposition testimony, the fact witnesses[’] testimonies and
               the medical evidence, Claimant’s testimony is rejected
               as not credible and persuasive. On the same bases, the
               testimonies of Vargas and Orlando are found credible and
               persuasive and accepted as fact.
               Of note is that Claimant continued to work after the
               [March 5, 2019] incident, worked the following day
               and did not seek medical attention until [March 7,
               2019]. None of the medical records document evidence
               of an entry or exit wound, Claimant’s
               [electrocardiogram] was normal and he did not have

       5
          “[W]hen the issue involves the credibility of contradictory witnesses who have actually
testified before the WCJ, it is appropriate for the [WCJ] to base his or her determination upon the
demeanor of the witnesses.” Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 828 A.2d
1043, 1052-53 (Pa. 2003).
                                                8
              myoglobin in his urine.[6] At the [emergency room] on
              [March 7, 2019], Claimant reported tingling in his
              fingers and toes prior to the [March 5, 2019] incident
              and for which he was treating with his [primary care
              physician (]PCP[)], [Lin-Fan Wang, M.D. (Dr. Wang),]
              but did not report the same to [Ronald Lieberman, D.O.
              (]Dr. Lieberman[)], Dr. Mendez or Dr. De Souza.
              Claimant saw his PCP on [March 11, 2019,] and his
              next treatment was not until [April 3, 2019,] with a
              physician to whom he was referred by counsel.
              Claimant denied taking Gabapentin prior to the work
              injury when in fact[,] he was prescribed Gabapentin by
              his PCP Dr. Wang[,] most likely for the injuries he
              sustained in a 2015 [motor vehicle accident (]MVA[)]
              from which he never fully recovered and as documented
              in Dr. Wang’s records. Claimant’s complaints regarding
              the [March 5, 2019] incident are similar to his 2015 MVA
              symptoms. [] Vargas and []Orlando[’s] testimonies are
              supported by the exhibits to their depositions. [See R.R.
              at 394a (incident report)]. Claimant’s name is in the
              daily time sheets for [March 5, 2019] and [March 6,
              2019,] in the column indicating a report of no injury.
              [See R.R. at 392a-393a.] Notably, Claimant’s response
              to the question of whether [] Vargas was his supervisor
              is best described as an overreaction, detracting from
              his credibility.[7]

       6
         Dr. De Souza testified that “if [the electrical wire] caused an injury like [Claimant
described], then it would have caused damage to the muscle, and in that case, there would be
evidence of myoglobin in the urine.” R.R. at 226a.
       7
         When asked during his deposition if Vargas was his supervisor, Claimant responded:
“Never heard of him. Don’t even know of him. He don’t [sic] exist. If he says [sic] he knows
me, he don’t [sic]. Maybe it was one of the Spanish guys. We didn’t talk with them. The only
person that we really talked to from their crew was Orlando.” R.R. at 50a. However, at the WCJ
hearing, when asked why he said he did not know Vargas, Claimant answered:
              I was brought to the awareness of who this Mexican guy was from
              my cousin who I got employed at this Union job from [] Orlando. I
              did not know [] Vargas, who he was, at that time.
              However, I got my cousin employed because [] Orlando asked me
              to get him ten workers that work like me. And I told him I can get
              him one and he said who. I told him my cousin, Carlos Hampton.
              And he brought him on board.
              ....

                                              9
R.R. at 419a-420a (WCJ Dec. Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 13) (emphasis added).
              The WCJ further concluded:

              Based upon a review of the evidentiary record as a whole,
              the [WCJ] finds the testimonies of Drs. Mendez and De
              Souza more credible and persuasive than any contrary
              testimony of Dr. Lieberman. Accordingly, the testimony
              of Dr. Lieberman is rejected wherever inconsistent with
              the testimony of either Dr. Mendez or of Dr. De Souza and
              the testimonies of Drs. Mendez and De Souza are accepted
              as fact. Significant in reaching this determination are the
              following:
              a) Drs. Mendez and De Souza[’s] testimonies are
              consistent and supported by the examinations each
              performed and the records reviewed. Their medical
              analyses are clear, logical and well supported.
              b) Dr. Lieberman’s opinion that there was no sustained
              tetany/no sustained muscle contraction and therefore no
              myoglobin was based on Claimant reporting he gripped
              what he thought was a hose and let go[, which] is not
              consistent with Claimant’s testimony of holding onto the
              hose for [five] or [six] seconds or his testimony that when
              he grabbed the wire, his muscles were contracting “and all
              of this was like cramped. And then, when I finally got off
              of it, when I finally could get off of this wire . . . [.]”

R.R. at 420a (WCJ Dec. FOF No. 14).
              After reviewing the entire record, this Court cannot conclude that the
WCJ’s rejection of Claimant’s testimony as not credible was “arbitrary and
capricious, [or] so fundamentally dependent on a misapprehension of material facts,
or so otherwise flawed, as to render it irrational.” W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys.,
Inc., 251 A.3d at 475. Further, without his rejected testimony, Claimant could not

              I found out from - who, exactly, he was from my cousin. He had
              dealt with [] Vargas. I did not know who he was. I didn’t know his
              name. I didn’t work around him or I didn’t know who he was.
R.R. at 299a-300a.

                                             10
meet his “burden of . . . establishing . . . [that] he . . . was injured while in the course
of [his] employment.” Cruz, 99 A.3d at 407.
                Moreover, “in rendering a reasoned decision in a case with conflicting
evidence, the WCJ ‘must adequately explain the reasons for rejecting or discrediting
competent evidence.’” Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.),
828 A.2d 1043, 1052 (Pa. 2003) (quoting Section 422(a) of the WC Act8). “[A]
decision is ‘reasoned’ for purposes of Section 422(a) [of the WC Act] if it allows for
adequate review by the [Board] without further elucidation and if it allows for
adequate review by the appellate courts under applicable review standards. A
reasoned decision is no more, and no less.” Id. Here, because the WCJ adequately
explained her reasons for rejecting Claimant’s testimony, and finding Drs. Mendez
and De Souza more credible and persuasive than any contrary testimony of Dr.
Lieberman, her decision was reasoned. Accordingly, the WCJ’s determination that
Claimant did not suffer a work-related injury on March 5, 2019, was supported by
substantial and competent medical evidence and was reasoned as a matter of law.
                For all of the above reasons, the Board’s order is affirmed.

                                              _________________________________
                                              ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

       8
           Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 834.
                                                11
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bobby Hampton,                         :
                  Petitioner           :
                                       :
            v.                         :
                                       :
A1 Environmental and Safety TR         :
(Workers’ Compensation Appeal          :
Board),                                :   No. 975 C.D. 2021
                 Respondent            :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2023, the Workers’ Compensation
Appeal Board’s August 4, 2021 order is affirmed.

                                     _________________________________
                                     ANNE E. COVEY, Judge