Court Opinion

ID: 9914504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 15:06:48.396865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:22.259810
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Marie Louise Boulin,                     :
                  Petitioner             :
                                         :
             v.                          :
                                         :
Brandywine Senior Care, Inc.             :
(Workers’ Compensation                   :
Appeal Board),                           :   No. 1273 C.D. 2022
                 Respondent              :   Submitted: November 9, 2023

BEFORE:      HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
             HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
             HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                                     FILED: January 2, 2024

             Marie Louise Boulin (Claimant) petitions pro se for review from the
October 13, 2022, order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The
Board affirmed the May 24, 2022, order of the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ),
who denied and dismissed multiple petitions filed by Claimant on the basis that the
issues raised in those petitions were barred by res judicata principles. Upon review,
we affirm.

                     I. Procedural and Factual Background
             Claimant sustained a work-related injury on August 28, 2018, while
working for Brandywine Senior Care, Inc. (Employer), a nursing home facility.
Certified Record (C.R.) at 165.1 In a notice of temporary compensation payable
(NTCP) that converted to a full notice of compensation payable (NCP) after 90 days,
Employer accepted and described the injury as follows: “[Claimant] slipped and fell
on steps fracturing her right ankle, strained right ankle, strain right shoulder, and
strain mid/lower back.” Id. Employer began paying Claimant weekly benefits at
the rate of $220.36. Id.
                Throughout 2019, the parties filed various petitions, which WCJ
Geoffrey Lawrence resolved in a January 31, 2020, opinion and order as follows.
Claimant’s counseled review petition asserting additional injuries was granted in
part to reflect that she sustained a right avulsion fracture of the calcaneus (heel bone),
cervical contusion-strain-sprain, thoracic contusion-strain-sprain, lumbosacral
contusion-strain-sprain, left elbow contusion, and right shoulder strain-sprain. C.R.
at 174. The WCJ further found that Claimant was fully recovered from her injuries
except for the right calcaneal fracture. Id. at 175-76. Regarding most of Claimant’s
injuries, the WCJ found Employer’s medical expert more credible than Claimant’s
treating doctor. Id. at 172-74. Regarding Claimant’s right calcaneal fracture, the
WCJ noted that Employer’s expert was a physiatrist and not a foot and ankle
specialist, that objective diagnostic evidence established an ongoing injury, and that
Claimant’s testimony concerning this part of her condition was generally credible.
Id. at 172. The WCJ found that Claimant remained totally disabled by the ongoing
calcaneal fracture injury and therefore denied Employer’s termination, modification,
and suspension petitions. Id. at 175-76.
                Claimant filed a counseled appeal to the Board, asserting that WCJ
Lawrence erred in finding her fully recovered from the bulk of her injuries. C.R. at

      1
          Certified Record (C.R.) references are to electronic pagination.
                                                 2
181. The Board affirmed in a January 21, 2021, opinion and order, explaining that
Claimant presented no basis to reweigh the WCJ’s credibility and factual
determinations. Id. at 187-88. Claimant then filed a pro se document with this Court
seeking to appeal the Board’s order, to which Employer responded with an
application to quash for untimeliness. See Boulin v. Brandywine Senior Care, Inc.
(Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 401 C.D. 2021, filed May 14, 2021)
(unreported). On May 14, 2021, this Court issued a per curiam memorandum
opinion and order granting Employer’s motion. Id. We stated that the deadline to
appeal the Board’s January 21, 2021, order was February 22, 2021, and that
Claimant’s March 17, 2021, appeal documents were therefore untimely. Id. Our
Supreme Court denied Claimant’s subsequent pro se petition for allowance of appeal
in December 2021. Boulin v. Brandywine Senior Care, Inc. (Workers’ Comp.
Appeal Bd.), 269 A.3d 1229 (Pa. 2021).
            Parallel to that litigation, on June 15, 2020, Employer filed a
termination petition asserting that Claimant had fully recovered from her right
calcaneal fracture. C.R. at 201. Employer presented a foot and ankle specialist in
support of its petition, and Claimant, still represented by counsel at that point,
presented the same treating doctor as before. Id. at 201-04. Claimant also testified
that she was not fully recovered. Id. at 204-05. In a July 29, 2021, opinion and
order, WCJ Sarah Makin found Employer’s expert more credible than Claimant’s
treating doctor and found Claimant’s testimony non-credible, inconsistent, and
unpersuasive. Id. at 206. The WCJ therefore granted Employer’s termination
petition as of June 3, 2020, when Employer’s expert performed his examination of
Claimant’s right calcaneal fracture and deemed it fully recovered. Id. at 207.

                                         3
               Claimant, now pro se, appealed WCJ Makin’s July 2021 decision to the
Board, which affirmed in a February 4, 2022, opinion and order. C.R. at 218. The
Board stated that regarding Claimant’s only remaining adjudicated injury, the right
calcaneal fracture, the WCJ’s crediting of Employer’s expert’s testimony over that
of Claimant and her treating doctor was supported by evidence of record, therefore,
the WCJ’s grant of Employer’s termination petition was proper. Id. at 216. The
Board added that Claimant also sought improperly to relitigate WCJ Lawrence’s
prior determination that she had fully recovered from her additional injuries. Id. at
217. The Board declined to address those claims, noting that litigation of those
injuries had concluded when our Supreme Court denied Claimant’s petition for
allowance of appeal in December 2021. Id.
               Claimant appealed the Board’s February 2022 order to this Court,
which affirmed in a May 9, 2023, memorandum opinion. Boulin v. Brandywine
Senior Care, Inc. (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 139 C.D. 2022,
filed May 9, 2023) (unreported). We agreed with the Board that WCJ Makin’s
factual findings and credibility determinations resulting in a conclusion that
Claimant was fully recovered from her remaining adjudicated right calcaneal
fracture were supported by evidence of record and the WCJ’s decision was
sufficiently reasoned. Id., slip op. at 7. We added that Claimant’s ongoing attempt
to challenge WCJ Lawrence’s prior determination that her additional injuries had
resolved was barred, as those issues had been fully litigated through our Supreme
Court’s December 2021 denial of Claimant’s petition for allowance of appeal.2 Id.,

       2
         Our majority decision in this matter also concluded that Claimant had waived her issues
because her pro se brief failed to sufficiently develop her arguments. Boulin, slip op. at 5-6. In a
concurring and dissenting opinion, President Judge Cohn Jubelirer disagreed that Claimant had
waived her issues due to defective briefing but agreed with the majority opinion’s affirmance on
the substantive merits. Id., slip op. at 1-5 (Cohn Jubelirer, P.J., concurring and dissenting).
                                                 4
slip op. at 7-8. Claimant did not petition our Supreme Court for allowance of appeal,
and, therefore, the WCJ’s grant of Employer’s termination petition as of June 3,
2020, is final.
              In this litigation, Claimant filed several petitions pro se on April 26,
2022: a claim petition, a modification petition, a reinstatement petition, a petition to
review compensation benefits, a petition to review compensation benefits offset, and
a petition to review medical treatment and/or billing. C.R. at 8-55. The petitions all
presented similar claims, the gist being that Claimant disagreed with the prior WCJs’
description of injury and termination of her benefits. Id. at 9, 18, 25-26, 33-34, 41-
42 & 49-50. She also listed additional conditions from which she continued to
suffer, including issues with her right thumb; bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome;
sciatica; tendinitis, tendinosis, and tendinopathy in both arms; and injuries to her
scapula and buttocks. Id.
              Employer answered the petitions in early May 2022, denying all of
Claimant’s allegations and asserting that res judicata principles barred Claimant
from seeking to relitigate the now-final adjudication of her injuries and termination
of her benefits. C.R. at 59, 62, 65, 68 & 71. Employer concurrently filed a motion
to dismiss with the same allegations. Id. at 157-59. Claimant answered Employer’s
motion, maintaining that she disagreed with WCJ Lawrence’s description of her
injuries and WCJ Makin’s termination of her benefits; she also wished to add various
documents and medical exhibits from 2019 through 2022 to the record of this
litigation. Id. at 139-54.
              The petitions were assigned to WCJ Tina Rago, who conducted a
remote video hearing on May 19, 2022. C.R. at 120-35. The WCJ asked Claimant,
who appeared pro se, to address whether the claims in her April 2022 petitions were

                                           5
previously litigated. C.R. at 126-27. Claimant asserted that WCJ Lawrence’s
decision amounted to an abuse of discretion in that it did not include all of the
injuries Claimant believed she sustained as a result of the August 2018 incident, that
she believed her benefits should not have been terminated by the prior WCJs, and
that she was looking for an attorney to represent her. Id. at 127. After completing
and closing the record, including Claimant’s proposed new evidentiary submissions
(including diagnostic and medical reports) and all prior determinations discussed
above, the WCJ advised Claimant that, based on her review of the previous decisions
and relevant documents, Employer’s motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata
principles would be granted. Id. at 132 & 134.
             In a May 24, 2022, decision and order, WCJ Rago set forth the
procedural background and various prior determinations and concluded:
             In the pending matter, the Claimant is attempting to re-
             litigate her injury of August 28, 2018[, including] the
             description of said injury and whether she had fully
             recovered therefrom. The issues raised and relief sought
             in the pending petitions have already been fully litigated
             before [WCJ] Lawrence and [WCJ] Makin and have been
             appealed to the [Board], Commonwealth Court of
             Pennsylvania, and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Id. at 94. The WCJ therefore determined that Employer met its burden of proof on
its motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata principles and denied and dismissed
Claimant’s petitions with prejudice. Id. at 95-96.
             Claimant appealed pro se to the Board, which affirmed in an October
13, 2022, decision and order. C.R. at 107-114. The Board stated that while it
sympathized with Claimant’s assertions of more extensive injuries and ongoing pain,
res judicata principles barred her April 2022 petitions. Claimant timely filed a
petition for review with this Court.

                                          6
                                         II. Issues
              Claimant asserts generally that the previous decisions included
erroneous findings of fact and credibility determinations, were not reasoned, were
not supported by substantial evidence of record, and amounted to abuses of
discretion.3 Claimant’s Br. at 6.

                                      III. Discussion
              The doctrine of res judicata encompasses two related, yet distinct,
principles: technical res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue
preclusion). Maranc v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bienenfeld), 751 A.2d 1196,
1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). Technical res judicata provides that when a final
judgment on the merits exists, a future suit between the same parties on the same
cause of action or claim is precluded. Id. Technical res judicata applies when the
following four factors are present: (1) identity in the thing sued upon or for; (2)
identity of the causes of action; (3) identity of the persons and parties to the action;
and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the parties suing or sued. Id. This
doctrine applies to claims that were actually litigated as well as those matters that
could and should have been litigated. Id. The essential inquiry is whether the
ultimate and controlling issues have been decided in a prior proceeding in which the
present parties had an opportunity to appear and assert their rights. Takacs v. Indian

       3
        “This Court’s review in workers’ compensation appeals is limited to determining whether
necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was
committed, or whether constitutional rights were violated.” DiPaolo v. UPMC Magee Women’s
Hosp. (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 278 A.3d 430, 433 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022), appeal denied,
290 A.3d 237 (Pa. 2023).
                                              7
Lake Borough, 10 A.3d 416, 418 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citing Callery v. Mun. Auth.
of Blythe Twp., 243 A.2d 385, 387 (Pa. 1968)).
               Collateral estoppel bars re-litigation of an issue decided in a prior
action. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist. v. Kojeszewski (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.),
280 A.3d 12, 18 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). Collateral estoppel may be applied only if
both cases involve the same issue, the prior action was litigated to a final judgment
on the merits, the party to be estopped was a party or was in privity with a party to
the prior action and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior
action, and “resolution of the issue in the prior proceeding was essential to the
judgment.” Id.

          A. Claimant’s Review Petition Regarding Description of Injury
               The proper procedure to add injuries to the existing description of injury
in an NCP is for the claimant to file a review petition under Section 413(a) of the
Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), 77 P.S. § 771.4 Cinram Mfg., Inc. v. Workers’
Comp. Appeal Bd. (Hill), 975 A.2d 577 (Pa. 2009). Where there is no obvious
connection between the accepted work-related injury and any alleged additional
work-related injuries, the burden is on the claimant to prove with unequivocal
medical evidence that the alleged additional injuries were caused by the incident.
City of Pittsburgh v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wilson), 11 A.3d 1071, 1075 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2011).
               Here, WCJ Rago concluded that Claimant’s April 2022 review petition
sought to relitigate WCJ Lawrence’s January 2020 description of the injury as: “right
avulsion fracture of the calcaneus, cervical contusion-sprain-strain, thoracic

      4
          Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4, 2501-2710.
                                               8
contusion-sprain-strain, lumbosacral contusion-sprain-strain left elbow contusion,
and right shoulder sprain-strain.” C.R. at 93-94. WCJ Rago therefore denied
Claimant’s April 2022 review petition as barred by res judicata principles. Id. at 94.
             Claimant asserts that WCJ Lawrence’s decision and order erred in
failing to account for all of her injuries. Claimant’s Br. at 11, 13, 19, 21 & 25.
Specifically, she asserts that she also sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome,
cervical disc bulges, lumbosacral disc protrusions, right thumb pain, bilateral hip
pain, tendinosis and tendinopathy in both arms, sleep problems and anxiety, and
issues with her gluteal, groin, and iliac areas. Id. at 12-17 & 24. Claimant maintains
that she is not trying to add new injuries; rather, she asks that all of her asserted
conditions from the August 2018 incident be found legitimate.           Id. at 26-27.
Claimant adds that she presented additional medical documentation at the May 2022
hearing that WCJ Rago ignored. Employer responds that Claimant’s description of
injury was fully and fairly litigated before WCJ Lawrence and was rendered final
when Claimant’s appeals failed. Employer’s Br. at 8-12. Employer asserts that
Claimant’s April 2022 review petition seeks to relitigate the description of injury
and is therefore barred by res judicata principles. Id.
             Employer’s NTCP accepted Claimant’s injuries as “fracturing her right
ankle, strained right ankle, strain right shoulder, and strain mid/lower back.” C.R.
at 165. During litigation on Claimant’s first review petition, she testified as to the
body areas she injured and that she continued to have headaches and pain in her
neck, left elbow, mid and low back, hip, thigh, knee, right heel, and left foot. Id. at
166. Claimant’s treating doctor testified that he diagnosed Claimant with cervical
sprain, strain, radiculopathy, and disc bulges at C4-5 and C5-6; lumbosacral sprain,
strain, and disc protrusions at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1; right shoulder strain and left

                                          9
shoulder sprain; left elbow contusion; and a right calcaneal avulsion fracture. Id. at
169.
             Employer’s medical expert diagnosed cervical contusions and sprain-
strain injuries (but not cervical radiculopathy or disc bulges as diagnosed by
Claimant’s doctor); lumbosacral contusion and sprain-strain injuries (but not
lumbosacral disc protrusions as diagnosed by Claimant’s doctor); thoracic contusion
and sprain-strain injuries (Claimant’s doctor did not diagnose thoracic conditions);
right shoulder sprain-strain injuries (but no left shoulder conditions as diagnosed by
Claimant’s doctor); and a left elbow contusion and right calcaneal avulsion fracture
(both diagnosed by Claimant’s doctor). Id. at 167. WCJ Lawrence ultimately
delineated the description of injury consistently with Employer’s medical expert’s
diagnoses and stated that this was due to Claimant’s doctor’s lesser qualifications
and lack of objective support for all of his diagnoses. Id. at 171-74.
             Claimant testified in the previous review petition litigation that she
sustained additional injuries; however, it was her burden during that litigation to
present unequivocal medical evidence in support of all of her asserted injuries, and
she failed to do so. City of Pittsburgh, 11 A.3d at 1075. To the extent that Claimant’s
treating doctor’s diagnosis testimony conflicted with that of Employer’s medical
expert, WCJ Lawrence was within his discretion and authority to give Employer’s
expert’s testimony greater weight, and he fully explained his reasons for doing so.
See Ingrassia v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Universal Health Servs., Inc.), 126
A.3d 394, 399 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). Therefore, WCJ Lawrence’s description of
injury in his January 2020 decision and order was properly upheld by the Board and
became final in December 2021 when our Supreme Court denied Claimant’s petition

                                          10
for allowance of appeal of this Court’s quashal of Claimant’s appeal as untimely.
See Boulin, 269 A.3d at 1229.
             As noted, technical res judicata precludes a future cause of action or
claim if the parties had a previous full and fair opportunity to litigate the same cause
of action or claim and a final judgment on the merits exists. Maranc, 751 A.2d at
1199. Four factors must be present: (1) identity in the thing sued upon or for; (2)
identity of the causes of action; (3) identity of the persons and parties to the action;
and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the parties suing or sued. Id. This
doctrine applies to claims that were actually litigated as well as those matters that
could and should have been litigated. Id.
             Here, Claimant alleged additional injuries when she filed her initial
counseled review petition in December 2018. She now asserts in support of her
April 2022 review petition that WCJ Lawrence erred because he should have found
other additional injuries in his January 2020 decision and order. However, Claimant
had the opportunity to establish all of her additional conditions during the initial
litigation and either did not or could not do so with regard to the additional conditions
she now asserts should have been included in her description of injury. The thing
sued upon, the causes of action, the parties, and the parties’ capacity are all identical
to the previous litigation. See Maranc, 751 A.2d at 1199. Therefore, WCJ Rago did
not err in finding Claimant’s April 2022 review petition seeking to correct her
description of injury barred by res judicata principles (here, technical res judicata
applies because Claimant filed a review petition in 2022 with the same primary
allegations as in her 2018 review petition) and the Board did not err in affirming that
determination.

                                           11
              B. Claimant’s Challenge to Termination of Benefits
             “[W]here a claimant files a review petition to correct the accepted work
injury, the review petition functions as a claim petition, making the duration . . . of
the work injury an issue.” Colagreco v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Vanguard
Group Inc.), 232 A.3d 971, 979 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020). In this context, the claimant
has the burden to establish the duration of the asserted injuries. Rife v. Workers’
Comp. Appeal Bd. (Whitetail Ski Co.), 812 A.2d 750, 754-55 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
Relatedly, when an employer files a termination petition, the employer bears the
burden of proving that the claimant is fully recovered from all work-related injuries.
Westmoreland Cnty. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Fuller), 942 A.2d 213, 217 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2008). In both instances, unequivocal medical testimony is required. Id.
at 217; see also Namani v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (A. Duie Pyle), 32 A.3d 850,
856 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
             Here, WCJ Rago concluded that Claimant’s April 2022 petitions, in
essence, sought to relitigate WCJ Lawrence’s January 2020 determination that
Claimant had fully recovered from her adjudicated injuries other than the right
calcaneal fracture and WCJ Makin’s July 2021 determination that Claimant had fully
recovered from the right calcaneal fracture, which resulted in termination of her
benefits. C.R. at 93-94. WCJ Rago therefore denied Claimant’s April 2022 petitions
as barred by res judicata principles. Id. at 94.
             As the WCJ concluded, Claimant challenges WCJ Lawrence’s
determination that she was fully recovered from her injuries except for the right
calcaneal fracture and WCJ Makin’s subsequent determination that she was fully
recovered from the right calcaneal fracture. Claimant’s Br. at 7, 11, 13, 19, 21, 25,
31 & 34. Claimant asserts that she continues to suffer from pain and nerve damage

                                          12
in multiple areas of her body and that the previous WCJ decisions erred in finding
her fully recovered. Id. at 9-10. She asserts that res judicata cannot bar her current
petitions because she has sustained a “continuing wrong.” Id. at 12. Employer
responds that the decisions issued by WCJ Lawrence and WCJ Makin were fully and
fairly litigated while Claimant was represented by counsel and became final after
Claimant’s unsuccessful appeals. Employer’s Br. at 8-12. Employer asserts that
Claimant’s claims are therefore barred by res judicata principles. Id.
             WCJ Lawrence’s January 2020 decision stated that testimony
concerning the duration of Claimant’s injuries was heard from Claimant and her
treating doctor, who both testified that her injuries were ongoing, and from
Employer’s medical expert, who testified that Claimant was fully recovered from all
of her injuries. C.R. at 166-70. Regarding Claimant’s injuries other than the right
calcaneal fracture, WCJ Lawrence gave Employer’s medical expert’s testimony
greater weight, which was within his discretion. Ingrassia, 126 A.3d at 399 n.5.
That decision became final in December 2021 when our Supreme Court denied
Claimant’s petition for allowance of appeal. Boulin, 269 A.3d at 1229.
             WCJ Makin’s July 2021 decision stated that testimony concerning
whether Claimant was fully recovered from the right calcaneal fracture was heard
from Claimant and her treating doctor, who both testified that her injury was
ongoing, and from Employer’s medical expert, a foot and ankle specialist, who
testified that Claimant was fully recovered from the fracture. C.R. at 201-05. WCJ
Makin gave Employer’s medical expert’s testimony greater weight, which was
within her discretion. Ingrassia, 126 A.3d at 399 n.5. That decision became final
when Claimant did not further appeal this Court’s memorandum decision and order

                                         13
affirming WCJ Makin’s determination. See Boulin (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 139 C.D.
2022, filed May 9, 2023).
               Claimant was represented by counsel in both prior WCJ proceedings
and had a full and fair opportunity to establish the ongoing nature of her injuries in
the litigation before WCJ Lawrence and to rebut Employer’s termination evidence
in the litigation before WCJ Makin. To the extent that Claimant’s April 2022
petitions seek to challenge the WCJs’ determinations, those matters were previously
litigated and are collaterally estopped:5 Claimant’s April 2022 petitions raise the
same issue as in the previous litigations (whether her injuries are ongoing), the prior
litigations resulted in a final determination, Claimant was a party to and had a full
and fair opportunity to litigate the issues, and the prior final resolutions were
essential to the final judgment in those litigations. See Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist.,
280 A.3d at 18. Therefore, WCJ Rago did not err in finding Claimant’s April 2022
petitions seeking to relitigate her prior termination barred by res judicata principles,
and the Board did not err in affirming that determination.6

                          C. Claimant’s Reinstatement Petition
               The only one of Claimant’s April 2022 petitions that may be viewed as
not previously litigated is her reinstatement petition. C.R. at 25-26. This Court has

       5
         Technical res judicata is not applicable here because Claimant’s April 2022 petitions do
not specifically reiterate a prior cause of action; they do, however, collectively frame her issue as
a challenge to the prior termination of her benefits.

       6
         In her pro se April 2022 petition filings, Claimant also checked the boxes to indicate that
she wished to file petitions for modification of benefits (to reduce or increase the amount of
compensation), review of compensation benefits offset (to impose or challenge an offset of
benefits due to a pension, Social Security, unemployment, or other source of benefits), and review
of medical treatment and/or billing (associated with payment of medical bills). C.R. at 17, 41 &
49. Those circumstances are not at issue in this matter; therefore, we do not address them.
                                                14
held that in workers’ compensation matters, termination and reinstatement pertain to
different issues and factual questions; therefore, res judicata principles will not
necessarily bar a post-termination reinstatement petition. Namani, 32 A.3d at 859.
             However, a claimant seeking reinstatement of benefits following a
termination “carries a heavy burden because the claimant has been adjudicated to be
fully recovered.” Nat’l Fiberstock Corp. (Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co.) v.
Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Grahl), 955 A.2d 1057, 1062 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). “In
order to prevail on a reinstatement petition after workers’ compensation benefits
have been terminated, a claimant must establish that [her] disability has increased or
recurred since the prior decision and that [her] physical condition has changed in
some manner.” Namani, 32 A.3d at 854 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
claimant must prove the change in her physical condition “by precise and credible
evidence of a more definite and specific nature than that upon which initial
compensation was based.” Nat’l Fiberstock Corp., 955 A.2d at 1062. The post-
termination reinstatement burden of proof is not merely heavy, but also specific, and
medical evidence, including unequivocal expert testimony responsive to the burden,
is required. Id. at 1062-64 (upholding post-termination reinstatement where the
claimant’s doctor testified unequivocally and with the support of objective evidence
that the claimant’s condition had recurred and worsened).
             Furthermore, although res judicata principles may not preclude a post-
termination reinstatement petition, when a claimant attempts to relitigate the prior
termination rather than trying to meet the requisite burden, this Court has concluded
that reinstatement is not warranted. In Lowe v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal
Board (Pennsylvania Mines Corp.), 683 A.2d 1327 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (en banc),
the Board reversed the WCJ’s grant of the claimant’s post-termination reinstatement

                                         15
petition. Id. at 1330. We affirmed, noting that the claimant had not established a
change of condition and a recurrence or increase of disability, but instead relied on
his expert’s opinion that he never recovered from his original injury. Id. at 1331. A
three-judge plurality decision written by Judge McGinley (one judge dissented
without opinion) cited res judicata principles, and a concurrence by Judge Friedman,
joined by the two remaining judges, opined that the claimant had not met his
reinstatement burden. Id. at 1331-32 & n.1 (Friedman, J., concurring). Despite the
fragmented nature of the opinion, Lowe reinforces that a claimant’s post-termination
reinstatement evidence must meet the actual reinstatement burden.
             In Huynh v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hatfield Quality
Meats), 924 A.2d 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), the WCJ granted post-termination
reinstatement on the basis that the prior termination decision had not specifically
found the claimant fully recovered from a head injury that the employer had
accepted. Id. at 720-21. The Board reversed and this Court agreed, concluding that
the WCJ erred in awarding reinstatement based on the purported continuance of the
original injury and that the claimant had not met his post-termination reinstatement
burden to show a change of condition and a recurrence or increase of disability. Id.
at 722-23. See also McNeil v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dep’t of Corr.), 169
A.3d 171, 175 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (concluding that rather than establishing the post-
termination reinstatement burden of recurrence or increase of disability and change
of condition, the claimant improperly sought to relitigate issues that had or should
have been addressed in the prior termination litigation).
             Here, WCJ Rago did not specifically address Claimant’s reinstatement
petition, but concluded that Claimant’s April 2022 petitions amounted to an attempt
to relitigate aspects of her August 2018 injury, including “the description of said

                                         16
injury and whether she had fully recovered therefrom,” issues that had been
previously litigated and were final. C.R. at 94. Although the WCJ and Board
decisions are both framed in terms of res judicata principles, they also amount to
conclusions that Claimant did not meet the post-reinstatement termination burden.
             Claimant does not argue to this Court that her disability has increased
or recurred or that her condition has changed. See Namani, 32 A.3d at 854. Instead,
she asserts that WCJ Lawrence’s description of her injury failed to include various
additional ailments from the August 2018 incident and that she continues to suffer
from symptoms rendering her disabled; therefore, her benefits should be reinstated.
Claimant’s Br. at 7, 11-17, 19-22, 24-27, 31 & 34. Employer responds that the
decisions issued by WCJ Lawrence and WCJ Makin were fully and fairly litigated
while Claimant was represented by counsel and became final after Claimant’s
unsuccessful appeals. Employer’s Br. at 8-12. Employer asserts that Claimant’s
claims are therefore barred by res judicata principles. Id.
             Like the Board, we are sympathetic to Claimant’s assertions that her
pain and disability are ongoing and to her inability to find an attorney to represent
her in these proceedings. See C.R. at 125-27. However, pro se litigants are held to
the same rules and standards as licensed attorneys: “Although the courts may
liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special
benefit upon a litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become a litigant’s counsel
or find more in a written pro se submission than is fairly conveyed in the pleading.”
Kozicki v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 299 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014)).
             Claimant submitted medical documentation in support of her claims to
the WCJ, who accepted that evidence and listed it in her May 2022 decision. C.R.

                                           17
at 92 & 132. This is not the same, however, as producing unequivocal medical
evidence, such as the testimony of a qualified expert. See Nat’l Fiberstock Corp.,
955 A.2d at 1063.       Although WCJ Rago denied and dismissed Claimant’s
reinstatement petition (along with her other petitions) as barred by res judicata
principles, the practical effect of the WCJ’s determination is that Claimant failed to
meet the post-termination reinstatement burden of showing a change in her condition
and increasing or recurring disability. We therefore agree that the WCJ did not err
in denying Claimant’s reinstatement petition and the Board did not err in affirming
that determination.

                                  IV. Conclusion
             In light of the foregoing discussion, the Board’s order affirming the
WCJ’s denial and dismissal of Claimant’s April 2022 petitions is affirmed.

                                       ___________________________________
                                       CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

                                         18
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Marie Louise Boulin,                  :
                  Petitioner          :
                                      :
            v.                        :
                                      :
Brandywine Senior Care, Inc.          :
(Workers’ Compensation                :
Appeal Board),                        :   No. 1273 C.D. 2022
                 Respondent           :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 2nd day of January, 2024, the October 13, 2022, order
of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.

                                    ___________________________________
                                    CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge