Court Opinion

ID: 9943890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:10:12.429208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:49:34.732417
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board,      :
                       Petitioner       :
                                        :
             v.                         :   No. 1407 C.D. 2022
                                        :   SUBMITTED: July 14, 2023
Dominick Demace, Jr. (Workers’          :
Compensation Appeal Board),             :
                       Respondent       :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
             HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
             HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER                              FILED: February 26, 2024

             The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Employer, petitions for
review from the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB)
affirming the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) decision and order that denied
Employer’s petition to terminate Claimant Dominick Demace, Jr.’s benefits and
amending his work injury to include a diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy related to
disc bulging at the L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 levels with neuroforaminal stenosis.
We affirm.
             The facts may be summarized as follows. On October 29, 2020,
Claimant was injured in an auto accident in the course of his employment as a
Maintenance Repairman 2 for Employer. By amended notice of compensation
payable, Employer accepted Claimant’s injury as strains or tears to his neck and
lower back caused by a motor vehicle accident. In March 2021 Employer filed the
petition to terminate benefits as of February 22, 2021, the date of an independent
medical examination (IME) of Claimant by Joshua D. Auerbach, M.D., an
orthopedic surgeon.
             The WCJ accepted live telephonic testimony from Claimant and Lauren
Donmoyer, a Human Resource Analyst 3 for Employer, and testimony by deposition
from Dr. Auerbach and Joseph D. Paz, D.O., who specializes in pain management
and is Claimant’s treating physician. The WCJ’s findings of fact (“F.F.”) included
detailed summaries of the witnesses’ testimony. As Employer’s arguments center
around the WCJ’s factfinding, we set forth the relevant portions of those findings
herein.
             Of relevance to this appeal, Claimant testified as follows. In his job as
a Maintenance Repairman 2, he did all types of carpentry repairs and lifted items
averaging 50 pounds with some items weighing 90 pounds requiring the use of hand
trucks and help from others. Claimant worked full duty and without restriction.
After the work incident, Claimant saw numerous doctors. Currently, he treats with
Dr. Paz and undergoes aqua therapy. Claimant continues to have headaches with
pain in his neck and lower back; he has a tingling sensation in his face, arms, hands,
and legs. Claimant has not driven since the work incident and does not believe that
he can return to his former position with Employer. Claimant was treating with his
family doctor prior to the work incident for “degenerative joint disease and arthritis
in his extremities and spine.” (F.F. No. 7.) Claimant takes medication for his
arthritis and had taken off work prior to the work incident for chronic pain.
             The WCJ summarized Dr. Auerbach’s deposition testimony as follows:

             Dr. Auerbach saw the Claimant on February 22, 2021. At
             that time, Dr. Auerbach obtained a history from the
             Claimant as to how the Claimant suffered the work injury.

                                          2
           Dr. Auerbach testified that he reviewed various medical
           records and performed a physical examination on the
           Claimant. Dr. Auerbach testified that he also reviewed a
           lumbar MRI dated November 8, 2020, and a cervical
           [Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI)] dated November 8,
           2020. Dr. Auerbach testified that everything on the
           MRI[] appeared to be chronic degenerative findings. Dr.
           Auerbach opined that as a result of the work injury, the
           Claimant suffered a cervical and lumbar sprain. Dr.
           Auerbach testified that the Claimant experienced these
           soft tissue injuries in the setting of preexisting
           degenerative disease. Dr. Auerbach did not believe that
           Claimant’s preexisting condition was aggravated or
           worsened by the work injury. Dr. Auerbach also opined
           that the Claimant has fully recovered from the cervical and
           lumbar sprain, and the Claimant can return to his preinjury
           position without restrictions. Dr. Auerbach opined that
           any ongoing restrictions would be related to a preexisting
           condition. Dr. Auerbach testified that he was provided
           with additional medical records which support his
           opinion that the Claimant had preexisting degenerative
           disease of the lumbar and cervical spine and that the
           work injury was limited to a cervical and lumbar sprain.
           Dr. Auerbach testified that he saw a record from
           November of 2020, from Intermountain Medical Group
           indicating that Claimant had been rear-ended with pain in
           his neck and back and pain with leg raises.

[F.F. No. 7 (emphasis supplied).] The WCJ summarized Dr. Paz’s testimony as
follows:

           Dr. Paz testified that he first saw the Claimant on January
           18, 2021, as a result of a referral from Dr. Carl de Luna, a
           neurosurgeon. Dr. Paz testified that he obtained a history
           from the Claimant as to how the Claimant suffered the
           work injury. Dr. Paz testified that the Claimant’s main
           complaints were low back pain, right leg pain, occipital
           and frontal headaches, neck pain, left arm pain and left
           shoulder pain. Dr. Paz testified that he reviewed a cervical
           and lumbar MRI and performed a physical examination on
           the Claimant. Dr. Paz testified that the Claimant had

                                        3
            spasms throughout the paracervical with trigger points
            and a positive straight leg raising test on the right and
            sciatic notch tenderness on the right. Dr. Paz testified
            that he recommended aquatic therapy, a neurological
            exam and consult, and injections into [the] Claimant's
            lower back and possibly into his neck. Dr. Paz continued
            to see and treat the Claimant thereafter with his last
            examination of the Claimant prior to his testimony
            occurring on September 9, 2021. Dr. Paz testified that the
            Claimant continued to have neck pain, low back pain, and
            right lower extremity radiation to the buttock area and
            occasionally lower. Dr. Paz testified that the cervical
            spine     examination       showed     motion     limitation,
            paravertebral tenderness, facet joint tenderness and spasm.
            Dr. Paz testified that the lumbar spine examination showed
            problems with range of motion on extension and
            hyperextension with a positive straight leg raising test and
            sacral tenderness. Dr. Paz opined that he diagnosed the
            Claimant with lumbar radiculopathy relating to disc
            bulging, primarily at L5-S1 with neuroforaminal
            stenosis but also disc bulging at [L3-L4] and [L4-L5].
            Dr. Paz opined that the work injury caused the disc
            bulging. Dr. Paz opined that the Claimant has not fully
            recovered from his work injury. Dr. Paz opined that the
            Claimant still suffers from radicular pain from the lower
            back into the leg which is directly related to the lumbar
            disc bulge causing a neuroforaminal stenosis. Dr. Paz
            testified that he diagnosed the Claimant with aggravation
            of preexisting arthritis at the neck and lower back. When
            asked if he disagreed with Dr. Auerbach's opinion that
            the Claimant did not aggravate his preexisting
            degenerative disease, Dr. Paz testified that he believed
            that the mechanism of injury, the whiplash type motion
            and the unguarded position that the Claimant was in,
            certainly could have aggravated that. Dr. Paz testified
            that he reviewed summaries of [the] Claimant’s primary
            care physician's records but not the actual records.
[F.F. No. 8 (emphasis supplied).]
            The WCJ resolved the inconsistencies between the testimonies of Dr.
Auerbach and Dr. Paz as follows:

                                         4
After a careful review and consideration of the entire
evidence of record in this matter, this [WCJ] finds that the
Claimant has not made a full and complete recovery from
all of the work injuries he suffered as a result of the
October 29, 2020 work injury. This [WCJ] finds that as
a result of the October 29, 2020 work injury, the
Claimant suffered a cervical sprain, a lumbar sprain,
and lumbar radiculopathy related to disc bulging at L3-
L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 with neuroforaminal stenosis.
This [WCJ] finds that the Claimant has fully recovered
from the cervical sprain and the lumbar sprain work
injuries, but he has not recovered from the lumbar
radiculopathy related to disc bulging at L3-L4, L4-L5
and L5-S1 with neuroforaminal stenosis. In finding as
such, this [WCJ] finds as credible in part the testimony and
opinions of Dr. Auerbach. This [WCJ] finds as credible
Dr. Auerbach’s opinion that the Claimant was fully
recovered from the cervical sprain and lumbar sprain
work injuries. This [WCJ] also finds as credible Dr.
Auerbach's opinion that the Claimant did not aggravate
or worsen his preexisting degenerative conditions. There
is no question that prior to the work injury the Claimant
had complaints in his neck and low back and was treating
for arthritis. In finding Dr. Auerbach’s opinion that the
Claimant did not aggravate or worsen his preexisting
degenerative conditions as being credible, this [WCJ]
finds as significant that Dr. Auerbach reviewed the
actual medical records concerning Claimant’s
complaints and treatment prior to the work injury, while
Dr. Paz only reviewed prepared summaries and not the
actual records. However, this [WCJ] does find as
credible and persuasive the medical opinion of Dr. Paz
that the Claimant suffered lumbar radiculopathy from
bulging discs caused by the work injury and that the
Claimant has not fully recovered from the work injury as
he continues to have radicular pain from the lower back
into the leg which is directly related to the lumbar disc
bulge causing a neuroforaminal stenosis. In finding Dr.
Paz’s opinion as being more credible that the Claimant
suffered the lumbar radiculopathy from bulging discs
caused by the work injury, this [WCJ] finds as significant
that Dr. Paz, unlike Dr. Auerbach, had the opportunity
to examine the Claimant on numerous occasions and

                             5
               during those examinations Dr. Paz continued to find a
               positive straight leg raising test. This [WCJ] also finds as
               credible Claimant’s testimony that he will not be able to
               perform his duties as a maintenance repairman 2. This
               [WCJ] finds as significant that Claimant’s testimony
               about performing his pre[]injury job duties is supported
               by Dr. Paz’s September 9, 2021 lumbar examination
               findings. This [WCJ] also finds as significant that Dr.
               Paz documented that the Claimant continued to have
               right lower extremity radiation to the buttock area and
               occasionally lower at the time of the September 9, 2021
               examination.

[F.F. No. 9 (emphasis supplied).]
               As stated above, the WCJ amended the work injury to include the
additional diagnosis and denied Employer’s termination petition.                      Employer
appealed the WCJ’s decision and order to the WCAB, arguing that substantial,
competent evidence did not support the WCJ’s finding that Claimant’s work injury
should be expanded to include the additional diagnosis.1 The WCAB affirmed.
               On appeal, Employer presents the question involved as follows:
“Whether the [WCAB] erred in affirming the decision of [the WCJ] denying
Employer’s termination petition and expanding the nature of Claimant’s work injury
to include lumbar radiculopathy related to disc bulging at the L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-
S1 with neuroforaminal stenosis.” (Employer Br. at 4.) More specifically, within
the argument section, Employer contends that the evidence relied upon by the WCJ
to amend the work injury description was incompetent and that the WCJ’s finding

   1
       Employer also raised a due process argument that it has abandoned on appeal.

                                                6
of an additional condition was contrary to the substantial, competent evidence of
record.2 (Employer Br. at 4.)
               Employer argues that Dr. Paz’s testimony was incompetent because he
did not review Claimant’s full medical history, including documentation from his
previous primary care provider, but rather reviewed summaries prepared by a
member of his office staff. In so arguing, Employer points to Southwest Airlines v.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (King), 985 A.2d 280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009),
and Long v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Integrated Health Service, Inc.),
852 A.2d 424 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). In Southwest Airlines, this Court addressed a
situation where a treating physician, offered as an expert, had no personal knowledge
of the claimant’s physical condition prior to the date of her alleged work injury. In
that case, the treating physician who diagnosed post-concussive syndrome “did not

    2
      Initially we note that Employer’s brief leaves something to be desired in terms of compliance
with Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2116(a), Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a) (“The statement of
the questions involved must state concisely the issues to be resolved, expressed in the terms and
circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail”) and 2119(a), Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The
argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at
the head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed--the particular point
treated therein . . . .”). The statement of questions involved and the sole heading in the argument
section consist of a bald assertion that the WCAB erred in denying the termination petition and
expanding the work injury. Employer does not present discrete issues involved or divide the
argument into sections corresponding to the questions to be argued. [See Employer Br. at 4
(statement of questions involved) and 32 (heading of argument section)]. Nevertheless, we
exercise our discretion and address the arguments in Employer’s brief that are fairly suggested by
the statement of the question involved and the sole heading in the argument section.

     To the extent that Employer’s brief suggests another issue, i.e. whether Claimant was required
to file a review petition to amend the amended notice of compensation payable (Employer Brief
at 36-37), that issue is not fairly suggested by Employer’s statement of question involved and is
waived. Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a) (“[n]o question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement
of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby”). Even if it were not waived, we note that the
WCAB properly rejected this argument as meritless, citing Cinram Manufacturing, Inc. v.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hill), 975 A.2d 577 (Pa. 2009).

                                                 7
review any of the claimant’s extensive relevant medical records, which would have
revealed two head injuries and complaints of headaches, blurred vision, dizziness
and neck pain beginning” several years prior to the alleged work injury, Southwest
Airlines, 985 A.2d at 287 (emphasis supplied), and the claimant had obfuscated her
medical history. This, the Court held, meant that the treating physician’s opinions
were based on an incomplete and inaccurate medical history, and that as a matter of
law, his opinion was not competent to establish a causative link between the work
injury and the claimant’s disability. Id.
             In Long, an employer presented the testimony of a physician who
examined a claimant at the employer’s insurer’s request and initially produced a
report stating that a work incident had caused the claimant’s work injury. At the
time he saw the claimant, the physician did not perform an examination and did not
have the claimant’s complete medical history, but opined that conditions were
caused by a work incident, only to recant his testimony later when a photograph
unrelated to the records was presented to him. Long, 852 A.2d at 428. We held that
“[a]n opinion that is rendered where the medical professional does not have a
complete grasp of the medical situation and/or the work incident can render the
proffered opinion incompetent.” Id.
             Here, Dr. Paz reviewed summaries of the pre-incident medical history
and thus, unlike the physicians in Long and Southwest Airlines, did at the time of his
testimony have familiarity with Claimant’s medical history that was not shown to be
incorrect. While one might find that review of summaries was for certain purposes
inferior to Dr. Auerbach’s direct review of the records (as the WCJ himself did), that
goes to the weight, not the competence of the evidence. Dr. Paz did review the
radiologist’s interpretation of the MRI of the lumbar spine, which showed

                                            8
degenerative disc disease and bulges at the levels in question. Dr. Paz, unlike Dr.
Auerbach, found objective indication of radiculopathy on several occasions in the
form of a positive straight leg test, which the WCJ credited (Dr. Auerbach’s
examination was negative for indicia of radiculopathy). Dr. Paz further opined that
Claimant’s lumbar disc bulging was related to his October 29, 2020 work incident,
which in turn was related to the disc bulging—an opinion that the WCJ also credited.
Notably, Dr. Auerbach testified that he could not state with certainty the cause of the
herniated disc because he did not have a preinjury MRI to review. (Auerbach Notes
of Test. at 68, Reproduced R. at 124a.) In these circumstances, we cannot find that
Dr. Paz failed to grasp the salient facts of Claimant’s medical history so as to render
his opinion incompetent.
             Turning to Employer’s contention, interwoven throughout its argument
section, that the WCJ’s determination was contrary to the substantial, competent
evidence of record, it is well established that the WCJ is the ultimate fact finder and
is empowered to determine witness credibility and evidentiary weight. Griffiths v.
Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).
The WCJ, therefore, is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of
any witness, including medical witnesses. Id. Unless made arbitrarily or
capriciously, a WCJ’s credibility determinations will be upheld on appeal. Dorsey
v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Crossing Constr. Co.), 893 A.2d 191, 195 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2006). In assessing whether the findings of fact are supported by
substantial evidence, the evidence and every reasonable inference deducible
therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Wawa
v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Seltzer), 951 A.2d 405, 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). It
is of no moment that the record contains evidence to support findings other than

                                          9
those made by the WCJ, as the analysis is only whether there is evidence to support
the findings actually made. Hoffmaster v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Senco
Prods, Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152, 1155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
             Employer’s arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence
primarily address whether Dr. Paz’s opinion was competent given his review of
summaries of the preinjury medical records instead of the actual records. However,
we have rejected the argument that Dr. Paz’s testimony was incompetent. Further,
we also decline Employer’s invitation to reweigh other items of testimony that might
have supported findings of fact other than those found by the WCJ, or to
unnecessarily find the WCJ’s actual findings inconsistent. It was within the ultimate
purview of the WCJ to resolve conflicting evidence in making his findings and
Claimant as the prevailing party is entitled to every reasonably deducible inference
therefrom.
             We conclude from our review of the record that there was substantial,
competent evidence to support the findings made by the WCJ. Thus, we find that
the WCAB did not err by affirming the WCJ’s conclusions.

                                       _____________________________________
                                       BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                       President Judge Emerita

                                         10
       IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board,     :
                       Petitioner      :
                                       :
            v.                         :   No. 1407 C.D. 2022
                                       :
Dominick Demace, Jr. (Workers’         :
Compensation Appeal Board),            :
                       Respondent      :

                                 ORDER

            AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2024, the order of the Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.

                                     _____________________________________
                                     BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                     President Judge Emerita