Court Opinion

ID: 9839199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 14:08:56.749762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:37.808000
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Susan Johntz,                      :
                        Petitioner :
                                   :
            v.                     : No. 501 C.D. 2022
                                   : Submitted: March 24, 2023
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania       :
(Workers’ Compensation Appeal      :
Board),                            :
                        Respondent :

BEFORE:     HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
            HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
            HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                    FILED: September 12, 2023

      Susan Johntz (Claimant) petitions for review of the May 11, 2022 order of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board affirmed the August 12,
2021 order of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), which granted Claimant’s
petition to reinstate her workers’ compensation benefits from partial to total
disability effective July 16, 2017, granted the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
(Employer) petition to terminate Claimant’s benefits effective July 15, 2019, and
dismissed Employer’s petition to modify Claimant’s benefits to partial disability
effective December 26, 2019, as moot. After careful review, we affirm.
                                       I. Background
       Claimant is a psychiatrist who worked at Norristown State Hospital before
suffering a work-related injury on August 15, 2013. WCJ Decision (Dec.), 5/11/16,
Findings of Fact (F.F.) ¶¶ 1-2. According to Claimant, “she was punched in the face
by a patient who had just been released from prison. . . . [H]er head went back and
hit the plexiglass at the nurse’s station.” Id. ¶ 5. Employer issued a notice of
compensation payable, acknowledging Claimant’s injury as a concussion. Id. ¶¶ 2-
3. Claimant filed a review petition, alleging she suffered injuries in addition to the
concussion. Id. ¶ 4. On May 11, 2016, the WCJ granted Claimant’s petition,
amending the notice of compensation payable to include diagnoses of “closed head
injury, post concussion syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder [(PTSD)],
significant facet mediated neck pain, cervical radiculopathy and neurocognitive
deficit.” WCJ Order, 5/11/16.
       On January 18, 2017, Claimant participated in an impairment rating
evaluation (IRE) with Michael A. Kennedy, M.D. (Dr. Kennedy), who concluded
she had an impairment rating of less than 50%. Consistent with the law as it existed
at the time, Claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits changed from total to partial
disability. Later that year, on June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck
down the IRE provisions at former Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation
Act (Act)1 as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. See Protz v.
Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017).
Claimant filed a reinstatement petition, which the WCJ granted on October 12, 2017,
returning her benefits to total disability status.

1
 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by Section 4 of the Act of June 24, 1996, P.L.
350, formerly 77 P.S. § 511.2, repealed by the Act of October 24, 2018, P.L. 714, No. 111 (Act
111).

                                               2
         Employer appealed to the Board. By the time the Board decided Employer’s
appeal on February 27, 2019, the General Assembly had passed Act 111,
implementing new IRE provisions at Section 306(a.3) of the Act.2 Citing the passage
of Act 111, along with developments in case law, the Board vacated the October 12,
2017 order and remanded for the WCJ “to reopen the record and permit the parties
to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with the current state of the law.” Board
Opinion (Bd. Op.), 2/27/19, at 2-4 (discussing Whitfield v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal
Bd. (Tenet Health Sys. Hahnemann LLC), 188 A.3d 599 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (en
banc)).
         On August 26, 2019, Employer filed a petition to terminate Claimant’s
workers’ compensation benefits, alleging she was fully recovered from her injury
and was able to return to unrestricted work. Employer also filed a review petition
on February 14, 2020, alleging Claimant participated in another IRE on December
26, 2019, with Vinit Pande, M.D. (Dr. Pande), who concluded she had an impairment
rating of less than 35%. Thus, after remand, the parties presented the WCJ with
evidence regarding Claimant’s reinstatement petition, Employer’s termination
petition, and Employer’s modification petition.      Claimant presented her own
deposition and testified at a remote hearing on May 4, 2020. In addition, she
presented the depositions of Jeffrey Heebner, D.O. (Dr. Heebner), a physician board
certified in family practice, geriatric medicine, and hospice and palliative care
medicine; and Ira Brenner, M.D. (Dr. Brenner), a psychiatrist. Employer presented
the depositions of I. Howard Levin, M.D. (Dr. Levin), a neurologist; Stephen
Mechanick, M.D. (Dr. Mechanick), a psychiatrist; and Dr. Pande.

2
    Added by Act 111, 77 P.S. § 511.3.

                                         3
A. Claimant’s testimony
       Claimant testified she had not worked and had not been capable of working
since her injury. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), Claimant Dep., 7/8/19, at 8-9. She
explained her ongoing symptoms as follows: “I still have neck pain, head pain,
tinnitus in my right ear, I was hit from the right, and I had a broken nose. I have
extreme anergia, I have gait problems, I have problems walking, and my short-term
memory is immediate and short-term [sic] are really bad.” Id. at 9. Claimant added
that she suffered from “double vision off and on,” nightmares, and “ungodly
insomnia.” Id. at 25. She began suffering from depression about two years after her
injury, but the depression had improved “recently.”3 Id. at 10. Because of these
symptoms, Claimant testified it was difficult for her to “even get out of bed,” and
she would “stay in bed for days.” Id. at 24. Nonetheless, Claimant acknowledged
she was capable of reading, walking, and driving.                  Id. at 28-29.       Claimant
acknowledged she took vacations and got her “hair done” and “toenails done.” Id.
at 30-31. She maintained her license to practice psychiatry and continued to treat
and write prescriptions for one patient, who did not compensate her, “once or twice
a year.” Id. at 13. Claimant recalled that she attended a “cognitive behavior therapy
conference” about a year before her deposition, but she was asked to leave because
she “must have been inappropriate or something” and “asked too many questions.”
Id. at 34-35.
B. Dr. Heebner
       Dr. Heebner testified he sees Claimant for treatment “approximately every
three to four weeks.” N.T., Heebner Dep., 12/13/19, at 6-7. Dr. Heebner did not

3
  Claimant described suffering from facial pain during her deposition on July 8, 2019. N.T.,
Claimant Dep., 7/8/19, at 24. At the hearing on May 4, 2020, Claimant testified she recently began
suffering “severe constant face pain, right-sided face pain.” N.T., Hearing, 5/4/20, at 16, 23-24.

                                                4
currently prescribe medications to Claimant but explained his role was to perform a
“[p]hysical examination, take a history and physical, listen to her symptomatology,
and give he[r] advice as to the management of that symptomatology.” Id. at 7-8.
Dr. Heebner opined Claimant was not fully recovered from her work injury and
could not return to her former job without restrictions. Id. at 10-11. He explained
examinations of Claimant revealed objective findings, which were consistent with
her presentation and history. Id. at 9. Specifically, Dr. Heebner recalled: “On
physical exam there are times when [Claimant] will be unsteady with Romberg
Testing when testing for dysmetria, when testing for past-pointing, as well as the
amount of discomfort with range of motion and muscle tenderness but particularly
in terms of her neurologic presentation.” Id. Although PTSD and post-concussion
syndrome may present few objective findings, Dr. Heebner added, there was “plenty
of evidence . . . that there is persistent symptomatology that’s affected people’s
live[s] where they never recoup their preinjury deficits.” Id. at 12.
C. Dr. Brenner
       Dr. Brenner testified he sees Claimant for treatment about once per month,
although “prior to this deposition [he] saw her last week and the week before.” N.T.,
Brenner Dep., 3/18/20, at 6-7. Dr. Brenner did not prescribe Claimant’s medications
either,4 instead explaining he focused on forming a “therapeutic alliance” with her.
Id. at 7-8, 23. Dr. Brenner diagnosed Claimant with complex PTSD as a result of
her work injury and a somatic symptom disorder, “which is not work related.” Id.
at 9-10, 16. He opined Claimant was not fully healed and could not return to her

4
 Dr. Heebner explained Claimant’s “treating psychiatrist” prescribed medications for her, and a
neurologist, Stephen Sacks, D.O., had also prescribed medications “at times.” N.T., Heebner Dep.,
12/13/19, at 8. Dr. Brenner explained another psychiatrist, Alan Gruenberg, M.D., prescribed
Claimant’s medications. N.T., Brenner Dep., 3/18/20, at 21-24.

                                               5
prior job due to difficulties with cognition. Id. at 10. By way of example, he recalled
performing an examination on Claimant during which she struggled to draw a clock
displaying the time “7:18.” Id. at 13. Claimant took five minutes to draw the clock
and wrote the time incorrectly as “7:13.” Id. Dr. Brenner opined Claimant would
have difficulty ever recovering from her PTSD, explaining she did not have “the
inherit resilience left . . . to bounce back,” and “the only thing that may help is very
intensive therapy 4 to 5 times a week over many years.” Id. at 11. Dr. Brenner
acknowledged he had known Claimant since she was a resident in the 1980s. Id. at
19-20.
D. Dr. Levin
      Dr. Levin explained he reviewed Claimant’s medical records and performed
an examination on July 15, 2019. N.T., Levin Dep., 1/9/20, at 8, 17. According to
Dr. Levin, Claimant’s mental status testing indicated her cognitive functioning was
“fine,” and her neurological exam was “totally normal” other than “some slight
difficulty with tandem walking.” Id. at 17-18. Dr. Levin emphasized what he
described as inconsistencies and a lack of findings in Claimant’s medical records to
support her work-related diagnoses. For example, although Claimant currently
alleged being struck on the right side of her face, medical records from shortly after
her injury indicated she complained of pain and impaired vision on the left side of
her face. Id. at 22-24. Dr. Levin opined Claimant was fully recovered from her
diagnoses as of the date of his examination. Id. at 44-45, 76. He explained, in
relevant part:

            I think her clinical course, at the point I saw her, was totally
      inconsistent with a postconcussion syndrome. And she didn’t have any
      evidence of any actual cognitive impairment. It’s clear from reviewing
      the records that the problems she’s experiencing were almost totally
      psychiatric and emotional in nature.

                                           6
            And as far as her neck, there’s no objective evidence of any
      musculoskeletal or neurologic impairment referable to her neck. And
      no one -- no one, except for maybe [one doctor’s] initial note -- actually
      described any focal neurologic findings on her exam that would suggest
      she was ever suffering from a cervical radiculopathy or correlate with
      any changes that were seen on the [electromyography] testing that was
      performed on her.

Id. at 44-45.
E. Dr. Mechanick
      Similarly, Dr. Mechanick reviewed Claimant’s medical records and
performed an examination on June 17, 2019. N.T., Mechanick Dep., 1/20/20, at 9,
27. Although Claimant presented with a “somewhat subdued” affect, misstated the
date, and was “slightly slow” in performing calculations, Dr. Mechanick discussed
her cognitive functioning in positive terms. Id. at 26-27. He noted Claimant
“described doing extensive reading of books, novels, and professional journals,
[which] typically somebody who has such severe impairment wouldn’t be able to
do.” Id. at 39. Dr. Mechanick concluded Claimant was likely suffering from a
psychological condition unrelated to her work injury. Id. at 36-37. He reasoned as
follows, in relevant part:

      This is a person who claims to have disabling symptoms from a
      relatively minor workplace incident; and with little improvement or
      resolution of her symptoms over time, that’s just not consistent with a
      typical concussion or postconcussive syndrome.

            When I see symptoms that are so markedly out of magnitude,
      then what I would expect when don’t improve [sic] and when they are
      accompanied by other symptoms that don’t fit the profile, such as her
      staying in bed so much, I think about some other explanations such as
      a somatic symptom disorder.

                                          7
Id. at 38-39. Dr. Mechanick also observed Claimant did not report any clinically
significant symptoms associated with PTSD, such as intrusive thoughts about her
work injury or avoidance of activities due to anxiety. Id. at 35. Claimant’s
symptoms were so minor, he explained, it was “difficult for [him] to discern whether
those were just essentially within range of normal or at all clinically significant.” Id.
at 35-36. Overall, Dr. Mechanick opined Claimant “doesn’t currently have a
neurocognitive disorder due to a traumatic brain injury from the August 15, 2013
work incident” and her PTSD symptoms had resolved, such that she no longer
required psychiatric treatment or counseling related to the incident. Id. at 33. He
opined Claimant could return to work without “psychiatric restrictions.” Id. at 36.
F. Dr. Pande
      As summarized above, Claimant participated in an IRE with Dr. Pande on
December 26, 2019, which included “history taking, physical examination and
medical record review.” N.T., Pande Dep., 6/2/20, at 17. Dr. Pande testified
Claimant did very well on her cognitive examination, scoring 100%. Id. at 18.
Regarding Claimant’s physical examination, Dr. Pande noted about a 50% “loss of
range of motion of the neck, turning in both directions” and “mild spasm with tender
points” on both sides of the cervical spine. Id. at 27. Dr. Pande denied there were
any “significant findings” for an ongoing physical disability, however. Id. at 29. He
explained: “Essentially she had an intact neuro. She may have had complaints with
her objective findings. She was fully functional at the time that I saw her.” Id.
Based on these examinations, Dr. Pande concluded Claimant was at maximum

                                           8
medical improvement with an impairment rating of 29%. Id. at 31-34, 39. He agreed
Claimant was not fully recovered from her work injuries.5 Id. at 60.
G. The WCJ’s order
       The WCJ issued an order on August 12, 2021, granting Claimant’s petition
for reinstatement. The WCJ found Claimant met her burden of proving continued
total disability at the time of Dr. Kennedy’s January 18, 2017 IRE and reinstated
Claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits to total disability effective July 16,
2017, the day she filed her petition. WCJ Dec., 8/12/21, F.F. ¶¶ 21-22. In addition,
the WCJ granted Employer’s termination petition effective July 15, 2019, the day of
Dr. Levin’s examination, finding Claimant was fully recovered from her work
injury. Id. ¶ 28. The WCJ dismissed Employer’s modification petition as moot,
given that she had granted the termination petition. Id. ¶ 30.
       The WCJ provided extensive findings of fact, explaining she credited the
opinions of Drs. Levin and Mechanick. WCJ Dec., 8/12/21, F.F. ¶ 25. Drs. Levin
and Mechanick conducted thorough examinations of Claimant and her medical
records, the WCJ reasoned, resulting in opinions that were “supported by the
objective findings on examination or lack thereof and the lack of traumatic findings
on the diagnostic studies.” Id. ¶ 26. Turning to Claimant, the WCJ rejected her
testimony as both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the “medical records
and opinions in this matter.” Id. ¶ 24. The WCJ rejected the testimony of Drs.
Heebner and Brenner as well, explaining they did not appear to be “actually treating
Claimant.” Id. ¶ 27. The WCJ reasoned Claimant treated with other doctors,
including Alan Gruenberg, M.D., who prescribed her medications. Id. Finally, the

5
 All five expert witnesses offered their opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. N.T.,
Heebner Dep., 12/13/19, at 14; N.T., Brenner Dep., 3/18/20, at 18; N.T., Levin Dep., 1/9/20, at 44;
N.T., Mechanick Dep., 1/20/20, at 40; N.T., Pande Dep., 6/2/20, at 43.

                                                 9
WCJ credited Dr. Pande’s opinion regarding Claimant’s impairment rating,
emphasizing it was unrefuted. Id. ¶ 29.
H. The Board’s order
      Claimant appealed to the Board, contending substantial competent evidence
did not support the WCJ’s decision. Claimant argued Drs. Levin and Mechanick
provided incompetent testimony because they did not believe she should have ever
received her work-related diagnoses. Bd. Op., 5/11/22, at 9, 13. Further, Claimant
argued the WCJ credited Dr. Pande, who opined she was not fully recovered. Id. at
14-16. Dr. Pande’s opinion, according to Claimant, negated the WCJ’s reasons for
granting the termination petition. Id.
      The Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision on May 11, 2022. It emphasized the
WCJ was the ultimate fact-finder in the case, who was entitled to make credibility
determinations and weigh the evidence. Bd. Op., 5/11/22, at 3-14. The Board
summarized the testimony of Drs. Levin and Mechanick, explaining their opinions
related to Claimant’s present condition rather than her condition at the time of the
work injury. Id. The Board recognized that the WCJ credited the testimony of Dr.
Pande. Id. at 14-16. It explained this credibility determination did not prevent the
WCJ from finding Claimant was fully recovered, however, because the purpose of
an IRE is to establish impairment, not to assess whether a claimant can perform his
or her pre-injury job. Id. (citing Weismantle v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lucent
Techs.), 926 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)).
      Claimant filed a petition for review in this Court and now presents essentially
the same arguments she presented to the Board. Claimant challenges the opinions
of Drs. Levin and Mechanick, and she argues Dr. Pande’s testimony was inconsistent
with the WCJ’s finding of full recovery. See Claimant’s Br. at 8-16.

                                          10
                                    II. Discussion
      This Court reviews workers’ compensation orders for violations of the
petitioner’s constitutional rights, violations of agency practice and procedure, and
other errors of law. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. We also review whether substantial evidence
supports the findings of fact necessary to sustain the decision. Id. Significantly, the
WCJ is the fact-finder in workers’ compensation cases and is entitled to weigh the
evidence and assess credibility of witnesses. Montano v. Advance Stores Co., Inc.
(Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 278 A.3d 969, 978 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (citing
Sharkey v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Fed. Express), 786 A.2d 1035, 1038 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2001)). We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party
that prevailed before the WCJ, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the
WCJ’s decision. Id.
      Section 413(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a WCJ may terminate
a notice of compensation payable upon proof that the claimant’s disability has
“temporarily or finally ceased.” 77 P.S. § 772. “To succeed in a termination
petition, an employer bears the burden of proving by substantial evidence that a
claimant’s disability ceased, or any remaining conditions are unrelated to the work
injury.” Baumann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kellogg Co.), 147 A.3d 1283,
1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Westmoreland Cnty. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal
Bd. (Fuller), 942 A.2d 213, 217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008)) (emphasis omitted). “An
employer meets its burden of proof when its medical expert testifies, to a reasonable
degree of medical certainty, that the claimant is fully recovered and that there are no
objective findings to substantiate any ongoing symptoms related to the work injury.”
Ciarolla v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Astrazeneca Pharms. LP), 239 A.3d 204,

                                          11
209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (citing Udvari v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (USAir,
Inc.), 705 A.2d 1290 (Pa. 1997)).
      Here, our review of the record supports the WCJ’s decision. Drs. Levin and
Mechanick testified, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Claimant was
not suffering from her work-related diagnoses at the times they examined her. N.T.,
Levin Dep., 1/9/20, at 44-45; N.T., Mechanick Dep., 1/20/20, at 35-40. Their
examinations of Claimant revealed no significant cognitive or neurological problems
and no clinically significant symptoms of PTSD. N.T., Levin Dep., 1/9/20, at 17-
18; N.T., Mechanick Dep., 1/20/20, at 35-36.         Dr. Levin opined Claimant’s
symptoms “were almost totally psychiatric and emotional in nature,” N.T., Levin
Dep., 1/9/20, at 44, while Dr. Mechanick proposed Claimant was suffering from a
somatic symptom disorder.       Mechanick Dep., 1/20/20, at 39.        Notably, Dr.
Mechanick’s proposal was consistent with the testimony of Claimant’s own witness,
Dr. Brenner, who believed she had the same condition. N.T., Brenner Dep., 3/18/20,
at 16-17.
      Claimant attempts to undermine the opinions of Drs. Levin and Mechanick by
taking portions of their testimony out of context. Claimant points to Dr. Levin’s
testimony that she had “slight difficulty with tandem walking” and Dr. Mechanick’s
testimony that she had a somewhat “subdued” affect, misstated the date, and was
slightly slow in performing calculations. Claimant’s Br. at 10-12 (citing N.T., Levin
Dep., 1/9/20, at 17; N.T., Mechanick Dep., 1/20/20, at 26-28). According to
Claimant, she cannot perform her pre-injury job “dealing directly with mentally
disturbed individuals coming . . . from the prison system” if she has trouble walking
or lacks mental acuity. Id. Claimant essentially asks this Court to reweigh the
evidence in her favor, which we cannot do. See Montano, 278 A.3d at 978 n.4.

                                         12
      In addition, Claimant argues Drs. Levin and Mechanick did not believe she
should have ever received her work-related diagnoses. Claimant’s Br. at 11-13.
Because Drs. Levin and Mechanick did not assume the validity of her diagnoses,
Claimant argues, their opinions could not support the conclusion that she was fully
recovered. Id. Even if an expert does not believe a work injury occurred, testimony
that the claimant is fully recovered from any injury he or she might have sustained
will be sufficient to support a termination petition. See Jackson v. Workers’ Comp.
Appeal Bd. (Res. for Hum. Dev.), 877 A.2d 498, 502-03 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (citing
To v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Insaco, Inc.), 819 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2003)). Once again, Drs. Levin and Mechanick opined Claimant was fully recovered
from her diagnoses at the times they examined her in 2019. N.T., Levin Dep., 1/9/20,
at 76; N.T., Mechanick Dep., 1/20/20, at 58. Their testimony therefore supported
the WCJ’s findings and conclusions.
      Claimant finally emphasizes that the WCJ credited Dr. Pande, who opined she
was not fully recovered. Claimant’s Br. at 13-15. Claimant attempts to distinguish
this case from Weismantle, which the Board cited for the proposition that the WCJ
could credit Dr. Pande while also granting Employer’s termination petition. Id. at
14. In Weismantle, the employer filed a termination petition based on a doctor’s
report indicating the claimant was fully recovered. 926 A.2d at 1237. The claimant
subsequently participated in an IRE with a different doctor, resulting in an
impairment rating of 10%. Id. at 1237-38. This Court held the IRE did not preclude
the employer from seeking termination. Id. at 1238-40. We explained, among other
things, that an IRE impairment rating is distinct from a determination regarding the
claimant’s degree of disability. Id. at 1240. IREs determine impairment, which may

                                        13
or may not affect a person’s earning power, while termination petitions focus on
earning power, i.e., whether a claimant can perform his or her pre-injury job. Id.
      Although Dr. Pande agreed during his testimony that Claimant was not fully
recovered, the WCJ did not credit that statement specifically. The WCJ found Dr.
Pande credible regarding Claimant’s impairment rating. WCJ Dec., 8/12/21, F.F. ¶¶
29-30. Moreover, although Claimant is correct that the circumstances of Weismantle
are somewhat different from the circumstances here, its analysis of the distinction
between impairment and disability remains instructive. Our Supreme Court has
more recently noted the same distinction. See Dana Holding Corp. v. Workers’
Comp. Appeal Bd. (Smuck), 232 A.3d 629, 631 (Pa. 2020) (under former Section
306(a.2) of the Act, “‘[i]mpairment’ . . . connoted an anatomic or functional
abnormality or loss resulting from a compensable injury that was reasonably
presumed to be permanent, as distinguished from ‘disability,’ which more directly
concerns the loss of earnings capacity”) (citation and footnote omitted). For this
reason, it was not impermissible for the WCJ to find Dr. Pande credible regarding
Claimant’s impairment rating while also crediting the opinions of Drs. Levin and
Mechanick that Claimant was fully recovered.
                                  III. Conclusion
      Accordingly, we conclude Claimant is not entitled to relief, and we affirm the
Board’s May 11, 2022 order, which affirmed the WCJ.

                                              ______________________________
                                              STACY WALLACE, Judge

                                         14
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Susan Johntz,                      :
                        Petitioner :
                                   :
            v.                     : No. 501 C.D. 2022
                                   :
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania       :
(Workers’ Compensation Appeal      :
Board),                            :
                        Respondent :

                                ORDER

     AND NOW, this 12th day of September 2023, the May 11, 2022 order of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.

                                     ______________________________
                                     STACY WALLACE, Judge