Court Opinion

ID: 9841465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 15:09:39.316334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:39.701649
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Adam Strzyzewski,                        :
                Petitioner               :
           v.                            :   No. 75 C.D. 2022
                                         :
Extensis II, Inc. (Workers’              :   Submitted: May 19, 2023
Compensation Appeal Board),              :
                    Respondent           :

BEFORE:     HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
            HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
            HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                  FILED: September 22, 2023

            Adam Strzyzewski (Claimant) petitions for review of the December 27,
2021 order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the
November 18, 2020 decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granting
Extensis II, Inc.’s (Employer) Petition for Modification, thereby reducing Claimant’s
workers’ compensation benefits from temporary total disability (TTD) to partial
disability benefits based on his recovery from his work-related injury and because work
was generally available to him as of February 13, 2019. Upon review, we affirm.
                          I. Facts and Procedural History
            On August 4, 2003, Claimant suffered injuries to his neck and low back
while in the course and scope of his employment. In accord with the Notice of
Compensation Payable (NCP) dated April 14, 2009, Claimant was paid TTD benefits
in the amount of $675.00 per week pursuant to the provisions of the Workers’
Compensation Act (Act).1 (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 3a.)
                 On July 19, 2019, Employer filed a Modification Petition following the
February 13, 2019 Independent Medical Examination (IME) of Dr. Robert Mannherz.
Id. at 291a. Employer alleged that Dr. Mannherz released Claimant to full-time, light-
duty work, and that suitable work was generally available as of February 13, 2019. The
Modification Petition was based on a labor market survey conducted by Employer’s
vocational expert, Caroline Potter, who identified four open and available jobs in
Claimant’s geographical area within his medical and vocational capabilities. Id. at
291a.
                 In support of its Modification Petition, Employer presented the testimony
of Dr. Mannherz, who opined that suitable work was generally available to Claimant
based on his medical release to modified duty. Id. The doctor further opined that
Claimant was fully recovered from this work-related injury to his lumbar spine as of
February 13, 2019, but acknowledged that Claimant continued to have a work-related
cervical injury. Id.
                 Employer’s vocational expert, Ms. Potter, testified that she was assigned
Claimant’s case on March 14, 2019, for the purpose of completing an earning power
assessment. Id. at 203a. Ms. Potter interviewed Claimant on March 25, 2019. Prior
to conducting a labor market survey, Ms. Potter attempted unsuccessfully to contact
Claimant’s time-of-injury employer to determine if Employer had any modified work
available for Claimant within his current restrictions and transferrable skills. Id. at
213a. Ms. Potter testified that she attempted to contact Employer, which was identified
on the Notice of Ability to Return to Work/LIBC-757 forms and was told that it had no

        1
            Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.1, 2501-2710.

                                                  2
record of Claimant’s employment. Id. at 21a. Ms. Potter further testified that Claimant
identified his employer as Quaker State, but she could not locate a company called
Quaker State. Thereafter, Ms. Potter followed up with Employer by way of a letter
dated April 30, 2019, and enclosed an affidavit for Employer to fill out. Id. at 216a.
Ms. Potter testified that Employer never responded to the affidavit and did not indicate
that no work was available to Claimant. Id. at 216a. Therefore, she concluded that
there were no job vacancies available with Employer.
              Next, she conducted a labor market survey, which is a job search, in an
attempt to locate appropriate positions for Claimant within his physical restrictions, his
transferrable skills, and his geographic area. Based on a labor market survey, she
identified four open and available positions: a call center customer service
representative, a hotel desk clerk, and two security officer positions. Id. at 222a-24a.
              Based on the deposition testimony of Dr. Mannherz and vocational
specialist, Ms. Potter, the WCJ issued the November 18, 2020 decision granting the
Modification Petition, and reducing Claimant’s TTD benefits to partial disability
benefits in the amount of $364.80 weekly. (WCJ Decision, 11/18/20 at 10). With
regard to Employer’s Modification Petition, the WCJ found that Ms. Potter “made a
good faith effort” to locate Claimant’s time-of-injury employer from 17 years ago to
determine if work was available before conducting the labor market survey. Id. at 7.
The WCJ found Ms. Potter’s testimony to be credible and that Employer had
demonstrated that work was open and available to Claimant within his medical and
vocational capabilities as of April 22, 2019, i.e., the date of Ms. Potter’s first available
job referral. Id. at 7, 9.
              Claimant timely filed an appeal to the Board. In the appeal, Claimant
alleged that the WCJ’s decision to grant the Modification Petition was wrong as a

                                             3
matter of law. Claimant argued that Employer was required to demonstrate the lack of
an available job at the time-of-injury employer as a prerequisite to conducting a labor
market survey, and that Employer failed to meet its burden. On December 27, 2021,
the Board issued its Opinion and Order affirming the decision of the WCJ in its entirety.
On the issue of whether Employer was precluded from relying on a labor market
survey, the Board disagreed, noting that an “employer is not required to prove the
nonexistence of available work at its own facility.” (Board Decision, 12/27/21, at 5.)
The Board explained,

              we do not agree [Employer] was precluded from relying on
              a labor market survey. [Employer] did not have the burden
              of proving the non[]existence of an available position.
              [Employer] presented evidence, which the WCJ found
              credible, of an unsuccessful attempt to locate Claimant’s
              time-of-injury employer. Claimant did not raise the
              existence of a specific job vacancy that [Employer] intended
              to fill and that he was able to perform. Therefore, the burden
              never shifted to [Employer] to rebut such evidence. Reichert
              [v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dollar Tree
              Stores), 80 A.3d 824 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)].

(Board Decision, 12/27/21, at 6.) Claimant now petitions this Court for review.
                                        II. Discussion
              In his petition for review, Claimant raises only one issue: whether the
Board erred by granting the Modification Petition based on general work availability,
because Employer failed to establish that it did not have a job available to Claimant
between the Notice of the Ability to Return to Work and the Modification Petition.2

       2
         This Court’s review of the Board’s order is limited to determining whether constitutional
rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the necessary findings of
fact are supported by substantial evidence. Russell v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board
(Volkswagen of America), 550 A.2d 1364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).

                                                4
Relying on Section 306(b)(2) of the Act,3 77 P.S. § 512, and Section 123.301 of the
Department of Labor and Industry’s regulations, 34 Pa. Code § 123.301, Claimant
maintains that Employer was required to offer Claimant a job, which he was capable
of performing, before seeking modification of benefits based on earning power.
Claimant argues that Employer “failed procedurally to demonstrate a lack of job
availability.” (Claimant’s Brief at 14.) Therefore, the Modification Petition should
have been denied.
              Pursuant to Section 306(b)(2) of the Act, if a claimant receiving workers’
compensation benefits is able to participate in substantial gainful employment and “the
employer has a specific job vacancy the [claimant] is capable of performing, the
employer shall offer such job to the [claimant].” 77 P.S. § 512(2) (emphasis added).
Regulations dictate the time period in which an employer bears this obligation to offer
a suitable job to the employee: “The employer’s obligation to offer a specific job
vacancy to the employee commences when the insurer provides the notice [of ability
to return to work] . . . and shall continue for 30 days or until the filing of a Petition for
Modification or Suspension, whichever is longer.” 34 Pa. Code § 123.301(b).
              As this Court has pointed out, the Act and applicable regulations are silent,
however, as to whether the burden of proof in a modification petition first lies with an
employer to prove the nonexistence of an available in-house job suitable for the
claimant, or with the claimant to prove employer does have such a job. Koehler v.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (SEPTA) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 3 C.D. 2017, filed
August 28, 2017).4

       3
        Added by Section 4 of the Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350.
       4
        Pursuant to Rule 126(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)
and Section 414(a) of the Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a),
unreported panel decisions of this Court may be cited for their persuasive value.

                                                5
             This Court first addressed this issue in Rosenberg v. Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board (Pike County), 942 A.2d 245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). There,
the claimant provided uncontradicted evidence that a specific job within her
capabilities existed with the employer after the claimant received a notice of ability to
return to work and before the employer filed its modification petition. We noted that
the Act was silent as to the presentation of evidence, but we were “mindful that the
burden of proof may be placed on a party who must prove existence of a fact rather
than on a party who must prove its non[]existence.” Rosenberg, 942 A.2d at 251. This
Court held that “once the issue is raised by evidence of a possible opening with [the]
employer, the employer has the burden of proof.” Id. (emphasis added). Because
the claimant provided evidence that a suitable job with her employer was available
within this time frame, the Court found that the burden had shifted to the employer to
prove that no such job existed and remanded the case accordingly. Id. at 252.
             We reiterated this holding in Reichert, 80 A.3d at 829-30, wherein we
summarized the holding in Rosenberg, as follows:

             [A]n employer does not have the burden to prove the
             non[]existence of available work at its own facility as a
             necessary element of the modification petition. Rather, a
             claimant may present evidence that “[d]uring the period in
             which the employer . . . had a duty to offer a specific job,”
             the employer had a specific job vacancy that it intended to
             fill that the claimant was capable of performing. The burden
             then shifts to the employer to rebut the claimant’s evidence.
(emphasis in original) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
             In Romano v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pocono Services
for Families and Children) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 828 C.D. 2019, filed February 21, 2020),
we ultimately rejected the very same argument raised by Claimant here. There, the
claimant argued that the employer’s modification petition should have been denied

                                           6
because the employer failed to prove that it did not have a suitable job available for the
claimant. Like Claimant here, the claimant in Romano argued that the employer has a
statutory burden to prove the nonexistence of a suitable job available for the claimant
before it could rely on a labor market survey. The claimant argued that the employer
did not meet its burden because the only evidence that the employer did not have an
available position was an affidavit from the employer, which the claimant alleged was
hearsay. Rejecting the argument, we explained that an employer only has the burden
of proof if the claimant raises, through evidence, a possible open position with the
employer. Id., slip op. at 6. Because the claimant presented no evidence of a specific
job opening with the employer, the employer did not have to prove it did not have such
a position available. Id. See also Koehler (rejecting the claimant’s argument that the
employer failed to prove that it met its statutory burden to show that it had no in-house
position to offer him before relying on the labor market survey where the claimant did
not present evidence of a specific job opening with the employer between the filing of
the notice of ability to return to work and the employer’s modification petition); Ayers
v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (General Dynamics) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1056
C.D. 2018, filed March 22, 2019) (holding that the WCJ did not err in holding the
claimant lacked prima facie evidence of a vacancy so as to trigger the employer’s
burden of proof because the claimant did not show that a specific vacancy with the
employer existed; therefore, the employer had no burden to prove its nonexistence).
Cf. Verga v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (R&L Carriers) (Pa. Cmwlth., No.
167 C.D. 2014, filed December 23, 2014) (burden shifted to the employer to establish
that a modified-duty job was not available to the claimant where the claimant presented
evidence that he was capable of continuing in a possible open position with the

                                            7
employer during the period between the notice of ability to return to work and
modification).
              Similarly, in Brozman v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board
(Commonwealth) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1697 C.D. 2016, filed October 5, 2017), the
claimant argued that her employer bore the initial burden of proving it had no available
work internally before obtaining a labor market survey. We disagreed, emphasizing
that the burden to prove nonexistence of a position only arises after a claimant identifies
and establishes the existence of a specific suitable position within the relevant statutory
time frame.
              Here, Claimant presented no evidence of a specific job opening with
Employer between the filing of the notice of ability to return to work and Employer’s
Modification Petition. True, Employer had the duty to offer Claimant a job within that
relevant period if one was available. See Section 306(b)(2) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 512(2).
However, that duty is different than the burden of proof at a hearing on a modification
petition. The above case law makes it clear that during the hearing on the modification
petition, the employer is not required to prove the nonexistence of an available job
position. Only if the claimant presents some evidence that a job was open and available
during the period between the notice of ability to return to work and modification
petition, does the burden shift to prove the non-existence of the position. Claimant
here appears to be conflating Employer’s duty under Section 306(b)(2) of the Act, 77
P.S. § 512(2), to offer a claimant a position if one is available, with the burden of proof
in a modification petition proceeding. As we have held time and time again, absent
some evidence presented by the claimant that an employer has an open and available
position within the claimant’s work restrictions, the burden does not shift to the
employer to prove it does not have such a position available. Reichert, 80 A.3d at 829-

                                            8
30; Romano, slip op. at 6; Rosenberg, 942 A.2d at 251. Therefore, the Board was
correct in its holding.
             Accordingly, the Board’s order is affirmed.

                                          ________________________________
                                          PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

                                          9
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Adam Strzyzewski,                    :
                Petitioner           :
           v.                        :    No. 75 C.D. 2022
                                     :
Extensis II, Inc. (Workers’          :
Compensation Appeal Board),          :
                    Respondent       :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2023, the December 27, 2021
order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                         ________________________________
                                         PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge