Court Opinion

ID: 9449265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 14:12:34.280661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:58.579812
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert Walls, Jr.,                  :
                                    :
                         Petitioner :
                                    :
             v.                     : No. 1414 C.D. 2022
                                    : Submitted: May 26, 2023
City of Philadelphia (Workers’      :
Compensation Appeal Board),         :
                                    :
                         Respondent :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
             HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
             HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                          FILED: August 4, 2023

             Robert Walls, Jr. (Claimant) petitions for review of the order of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the decision of a workers’
compensation judge (WCJ) that granted the Petition to Modify Compensation
Benefits (Modification Petition) of the City of Philadelphia (Employer) based on an
Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE), and modified Claimant’s benefits from total
to partial disability status. Claimant challenges as unconstitutional the retroactive
application of Act 111 of 2018 (Act 111), which added Section 306(a.3) of the
Workers’ Compensation Act (WC and Act, respectively),1 altering the criteria for
determining a claimant’s disability status and providing that an impairment rating of
less than 35% constitutes a partial disability, and providing a credit for disability
payments already made. Claimant maintains that Act 111 cannot be constitutionally
applied to workers whose injuries occurred before October 24, 2018, the effective date
of Act 111. We affirm.
              According to an October 10, 2018 amended Notice of Compensation
Payable, on February 24, 2012, Claimant sustained an injury in the nature of a strain
or tear of soft tissue resulting from a work-related motor vehicle accident. On July
26, 2021, Employer filed the instant Modification Petition based on an IRE
following an examination by Brian Walsh, D.O. (Dr. Walsh), on June 15, 2021. See
Reproduced Record (RR) at 1a-2a; Certified Record Docket (CR Dkt.) Entry 17 at
Ex. 2.
              At hearings before the WCJ, Employer presented the deposition
testimony of Dr. Walsh and Claimant in support of its Modification Petition. In
opposition to the Modification Petition, Claimant testified and presented the
deposition testimony of Scott Pello, M.D. (Dr. Pello). See CR Dkt. Entry 16.
              Ultimately, on July 13, 2022, the WCJ issued a decision in which he
made the following relevant findings of fact:

              8.    This [WCJ] has reviewed and considered the entire
              deposition of Dr. Walsh and finds him to be credible. Dr.
              Walsh is qualified to perform IREs based on his
              designation as an IRE provider by the Bureau [of WC]. He
              persuasively testified that Claimant reached [maximum
              medical improvement (MMI)] based on Claimant’s lack of
              medical treatment for many years and given there was not

         1
         Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by the Act of October 24, 2018, P.L.
714, No. 111 (Act 111), 77 P.S. §511.3.
                                              2
             any significant planned treatment in the foreseeable future.
             Dr. Walsh’s opinion that Claimant’s impairment rating for
             the work-related injuries was 23% is corroborated by
             Claimant’s history, his examination of Claimant, review
             of medical records, and his explanation of the calculations
             using the [Sixth Edition of the American Medical
             Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
             Impairment, Second Printing (Guides)]. Dr. Walsh’s
             testimony as to Claimant’s reaching MMI and the [whole-
             person impairment (WPI)] is credible and persuasive and
             accepted over that of Dr. Pello given his superior expertise
             in the medical field conducting IREs.

             9.    This [WCJ] has reviewed and considered the entire
             deposition of Dr. Pello and finds him to be not credible.
             Dr. Pello’s opinion that Claimant has not reached MMI is
             not persuasive given Claimant’s lack of medical treatment
             for many years. In addition, Claimant had not undergone
             any surgical procedures since the work-related motor
             vehicle accident and Dr. Pello did not point to any medical
             evidence that contemplated surgery.

             10. This [WCJ] has reviewed and considered the entire
             testimony of Claimant. Claimant’s testimony regarding
             the need for additional treatment from Dr. Pello is not
             credible as Claimant was not actively treating at the time
             of the IRE in June 2021[,] or in February 2022[,] when he
             was seen for the first time by Dr. Pello. Significantly, he
             was initially referred to Dr. Pello by his attorney, 10 years
             after the work-related injury, for the purpose of defending
             the Modification Petition.

             11. This [WCJ] finds that as of June 15, 2021, Claimant
             had reached MMI and has a WPI of 23% and, therefore,
             Claimant’s disability benefits status will be changed from
             total to partial based on the IRE performed by Dr. Walsh.
RR at 10a.
             Accordingly, the WCJ issued an order granting Employer’s
Modification Petition, and modifying Claimant’s WC benefits status from total to
partial disability effective June 15, 2021. See RR at 11a. The Board affirmed the

                                          3
WCJ’s decision on appeal, and Claimant filed this petition for review of the Board’s
order.2
                 The only claim that Claimant raises on appeal is that the Board erred in
affirming the WCJ’s decision because the provisions of Act 111 are unconstitutional.
Specifically, Claimant argues that Act 111 violates his rights as guaranteed by the
Remedies Clause of article I, section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,3 and the
Non-Delegation Clause of article II, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.4
                 However, as acknowledged by Claimant in his appellate brief, this
Court has previously rejected these precise constitutional claims. As a result, we
will not accede to Claimant’s request to reexamine our prior precedent, and we rely
upon the rationales expressed in our prior opinions to affirm the Board’s order in
this case.       Hutchinson v. Annville Township (Workers’ Compensation Appeal
Board), 260 A.3d 360 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021), appeal denied, 279 A.3d 1180 (Pa.
2022); Pierson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Consol Pennsylvania
Coal Company, LLC, 252 A.3d 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 261 A.2d 378
(Pa. 2021); Rose Corporation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Espada),
238 A.3d 551 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020); Hardik v. Community Health Systems (Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 385 C.D. 2022, filed May 17,
2023); Nadolsky v. UPMC Altoona Regional Health System (Workers’

       2
        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.

       3
           Pa. Const. art. I, §11.

       4
           Pa. Const. art. II, §1.
                                                4
Compensation Appeal Board) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1366 C.D. 2021, filed May 17,
2023).5
               Accordingly, the Board’s order is affirmed.

                                              MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision of this case.
Judge Dumas did not participate in the decision of this case.

       5
         See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (“As used in this rule, ‘non-precedential decision’ refers to . . . an
unreported memorandum opinion of the Commonwealth Court filed after January 15, 2008. Non-
precedential decisions . . . may be cited for their persuasive value.”).
                                                 5
          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert Walls, Jr.,                  :
                                    :
                         Petitioner :
                                    :
             v.                     : No. 1414 C.D. 2022
                                    :
City of Philadelphia (Workers’      :
Compensation Appeal Board),         :
                                    :
                         Respondent :

                                 ORDER

             AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2023, the order of the Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board dated November 23, 2022, is AFFIRMED.

                                    __________________________________
                                    MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge