Court Opinion

ID: 9707298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:07:57.193825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:30.690180
License: Public Domain

OPINION BY
Senior Judge QUIGLEY.1
Duferco Farrell Corporation (Employer) and American Zurich Insurance Company (Insurer) petition for review of the June 5, 2009, order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), which affirmed the decision of a workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) to grant the reinstatement petition filed by Joseph A. Zuhosky (Claimant) and to award unreasonable contest fees. We reverse.
Claimant sustained a work-related medial meniscus tear in his left knee on March 26, 2003. As a result, Claimant received workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable and, later, a Notice of Compensation Payable. Claimant’s benefits were suspended as of August 1, 2005, when he returned to modified duty. However, on January 27, 2007, Claimant stopped working his modified duty job, and, on January 31, 2007, Claimant underwent total left knee replacement surgery.
On March 29, 2007, Claimant filed a reinstatement petition. Employer filed a timely answer, and hearings were held before the WCJ. In support of his petition, Claimant testified on his own behalf and presented the medical report of Lester S. Borden, M.D., who performed Claimant’s knee replacement. Dr. Borden opined that Claimant’s work injury had aggravated his pre-existing arthritis, which expedited the need for a total knee replacement. Dr. Borden released Claimant to return to work on September 10, 2007, with restrictions for six months.2
*65Employer presented no evidence at the hearings. However, at the May 1, 2007, hearing, Employer asked Claimant on cross-examination about his plans to retire.
Q. Had you also had discussions with your Employer about the fact that you were going to retire?
A. I mentioned to them I would like to retire.
Q. You were going to have your knee operated on, and you were going to retire? That was your intention?
A. My intention was to have my knee operated on first.
Q. Then, retire?
A. Eventually, yes.
Q. You’re how old?
A. I’m 67.
Q. You do collect Social Security; correct?
A. Yes....
Q. Have you made any application for retirement?....
A. No.
Q. Are you planning on doing that?
A. Eventually, I would like to retire, yes.
(R.R. at 26a-27a.) In March of 2008, Claimant attempted to return to work,3 but, after two or three days, his left knee became swollen, and Claimant could not continue.
At the September 23, 2008, hearing on Claimant’s reinstatement petition, Employer once again asked Claimant about his retirement plans.
Q. Okay. I take it that if a job were offered [that] you felt was within your physical restrictions, you would take it, go back to work?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Have you looked for any work on your own within your physical restrictions that would allow you to return to work? Have you looked for any work on your own? Did you make any applications for a job that you felt ...
A. No, I haven’t made any applications for any employment anywhere.
Q. You haven’t looked for a job?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You decided to take your Social Security benefits, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Old age?
A. Yes.
Q. So you decided to retire from the workforce; is that a fair statement?
A. No, the reason I signed up for Social Security was that ... Employer denied me Workmen’s Comp and my attorney advised me, said to sign up for it. Q. So you’re collecting Social Security old age benefits and a pension of any sort from the union?
A. From the union, yes....
Q. Okay. And as I understand it, you would return to work at a job you feel is within your restrictions if there was one ... available?
A. Yes.
Q. But you decided not to look for work on your own?
A. No, I haven’t looked for work on my own....
Q. Did your doctor ever say to you he felt you were capable of returning to work to a modified job?
A. At a specific modified job, yes. Desk work only.
Q. Desk work only. Have you looked for desk work?
*66A. No, I haven’t.
(R.R. at 52a-54a.)
After considering the evidence, the WCJ reinstated Claimant’s benefits and awarded unreasonable contest fees. Employer appealed to the WCAB, arguing that, under Pennsylvania State University v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hensal), 948 A.2d 907 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008), Claimant voluntarily removed himself from the labor market by accepting the union pension and, thus, was not entitled to a reinstatement of benefits. However, the WCAB rejected this argument because Employer failed to show unequivocally that Claimant intended to voluntarily remove himself from the workforce. The WCAB also concluded that, because Employer did not convince the WCJ that Claimant had voluntarily retired, Employer did not present a reasonable contest. Employer now petitions this Court for review.4
The question that Employer raises in this case is an issue of first impression, i.e., whether a claimant’s receipt of a pension from a source other than the employer triggers the presumption that the claimant has withdrawn from the workforce. Employer argues that, under Hensal, a claimant who accepts a pension is presumed to have left the workforce, and Claimant did not rebut that presumption by establishing that he was seeking employment or that the work injury forced him to retire. We agree.
In Hensal, the claimant applied for a disability pension in order to maintain health insurance, hospitalization, vision and other benefits provided by the employer. The claimant acknowledged that he had retired from his position with the employer. The employer filed a suspension petition, arguing that it was entitled to a suspension because the claimant had retired and was not engaged in a good-faith job search. This Court held that, where a claimant accepts a pension, the claimant is presumed to have left the workforce unless the claimant establishes that he is actively seeking employment or that the work-related injury forced him to retire. Hensal, 948 A.2d at 910 (citing Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Henderson), 543 Pa. 74, 669 A.2d 911 (1995)). To show that he is actively seeking employment, a claimant must engage in a good-faith job search. Id. at 910-911. In order to show that a work-related injury forced him to retire, a claimant must establish that the work-related injury made him incapable of working at any job in the entire labor market. Mason v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Joy Mining Machinery), 944 A.2d 827 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008).
Here, Claimant admitted that he told Employer before his knee surgery that he would like to retire, and, when Employer did not reinstate his benefits following the knee surgery, he took Social Security retirement benefits and a union pension. However, Claimant did not apply for retirement from his employment with Employer. Thus, we must determine here whether Claimant’s actions trigger the presumption that he has withdrawn from the entire labor market or whether Employer should bear the burden of proving that Claimant has no intention of continuing to work.
*67In Henderson, our supreme court stated: “An employer should not be required to show that a claimant [who has taken Social Security retirement benefits and a pension from his employer] has no intention of continuing to work; such a burden of proof would be prohibitive.” Henderson, 543 Pa. 74, 78, 669 A.2d 911, 913. Likewise, it would be overly burdensome for an employer to prove that a claimant has no intention of continuing to work where the claimant has mentioned to the employer that he would like to retire, has taken Social Security retirement benefits and has taken a union pension. Conversely, it would not be overly burdensome for a claimant to prove that he intends to continue working under these circumstances; the claimant need only show that he is applying for jobs within his physical restrictions.
Thus, here, it was presumed that Claimant voluntarily removed himself from the labor market. Claimant had the burden of rebutting that presumption by establishing that he has engaged in a good-faith job search or that his work-related injury made him incapable of working at any job in the entire labor market. Claimant failed to meet that burden.
Accordingly, we reverse.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2010, the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), dated June 5, 2009, is hereby reversed.

. This case was reassigned to the opinion writer on December 1, 2009.

. Claimant also presented the medical report of Jon B. Tucker, M.D., who conducted an independent medical examination of Claimant on May 12, 2008. Dr. Tucker agreed with Dr. Borden that Claimant’s work injury aggravated a pre-existing condition, which resulted in the need for a total knee replacement.

. We note that Dr. Borden released Claimant to return to work in September of 2007, but restricted Claimant's activities for a six-month period ending in March of 2008.

. 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.