Court Opinion

ID: 9755999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:02:12.957676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:13.860146
License: Public Domain

CAPPY, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion but write separately to set forth my understanding of the applicable legal standard which the *331majority announces today. Also, I write to emphasize, consistent with the majority opinion, the continuing requirement that when an employer’s medical expert does acknowledge, attest to or support the existence of a claimant’s ongoing or continuous pain, that expert must also opine that the pain is unrelated to the work injury for the employer to be successful in a termination proceeding.
First it is necessary to recognize the considerable burden an employer faces in a termination proceeding. Disability is presumed until demonstrated otherwise. Thus, in order to obtain a termination of benefits, it is the employer’s burden to prove that “all disability related to a compensable injury has ceased.” Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments Division, 526 Pa. 25, 31-32, 584 A.2d 301, 304 (1990).
The majority holds that in termination proceedings where the claimant complains of continued pain, an employer may meet its burden if its medical expert unequivocally testifies that it is his opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the claimant is fully recovered, can return to work without restrictions and that there are no objective medical findings which either substantiate the claims of pain or connect them to the work injury. Maj. Op. at pp. 1293-1294. With this I agree.
However, in reaching this holding, the majority carefully distinguishes prior Commonwealth Court precedent which addressed the issue of an employer’s medical expert’s acknowledgement or support of the claimant’s pain.1 The majority cogently notes that in those cases, “the term ‘acknowledge’ was used in the context of the employer’s medical expert accepting the fact that the claimant suffered from pain, yet failed to opine that the pain was unrelated to the work injury.” Maj. Op. at p. 1293. Conversely, the majority emphasizes that the term “was not used to describe the medical expert’s mere *332recognition that the claimant complained of pain.” Maj. Op. at pp. 1293 (emphasis original).
Thus, by distinguishing these cases, I believe, and the majority makes clear, that two legal standards emerge from this case. First, if an employer’s medical expert merely recognizes a claimant’s complaints of pain, the employer’s burden in a termination proceeding will be satisfied if the expert unequivocally testifies to a full recovery, a return to work without restriction, and no objective medical findings regarding the claims of pain, as stated above.
However, and I emphasize, if an employer’s medical expert does acknowledge, attest to or support the existence of the claimant’s ongoing or continuous pain, then he or she must also specifically opine that the pain is unrelated to the work ipjury for the employer to be successful in a termination proceeding. This standard derives from, and is required by, the employer’s burden to prove that all work-related disability has ceased. Pieper.
Applying its holding to the case sub judice, the majority properly determines that USAir met its burden of proof. The majority specifically finds that USAir’s medical expert’s reference to Ms. Udvari’s complaints of pain did not preclude the termination of benefits. Rather, the majority explains that USAir’s expert gave Ms. Udvari “the benefit of the doubt” that she believed that she experienced some sort of pain, i.e., that the expert merely recognized that Ms. Udvari complained of pain. As USAir’s medical expert did not acknowledge that Ms. Udvari suffered from pain, he was not required to opine that such pain was unrelated to the work injury for USAir to be successful in its attempt to terminate Ms. Udvari’s benefits.
For the above stated reasons, I join in the majority opinion.
NIGRO, J., joins this concurring opinion.

. Moltzen v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Rochester Manor), 166 Pa.Cmwlth. 589, 646 A.2d 748 (1994); McFaddin v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Monongahela Valley Hospital), 153 Pa.Cmwlth. 252, 620 A.2d 709 (1993); Rogers Motor Lines, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Kenneth E. Baker), 144 Pa.Cmwlth. 493, 601 A.2d 934 (1992).