Court Opinion

ID: 9912478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 16:07:59.487355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:59:31.360084
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Craig A. Davis,                          :
                   Petitioner            :
                                         :   No. 141 C.D. 2022
            v.                           :
                                         :   Submitted: February 24, 2023
XPO LTL Solutions (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 McCULLOUGH                                  FILED: December 22, 2023

            Craig Davis (Claimant) petitions for review of the January 26, 2022 order
of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the decision of
a workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) granting Claimant’s Reinstatement Petition
(Reinstatement Petition) to reinstate temporary total disability (TTD) benefits as of
February 4, 2021, the date Claimant filed his Reinstatement Petition, rather than as of
January 15, 2016, the date his benefits were originally modified based upon the results
of an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE). Applying binding precedent from this
Court, we affirm the Board.
                    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
            The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows.
On May 8, 2013, Claimant sustained a lower back injury during the course and scope
of his employment as a dock worker with XPO LTL Solutions (Employer). Employer
acknowledged the injury via a Notice of Compensation Payable, and Claimant received
TTD benefits. After the payment of 104 weeks of TTD benefits,1 Employer requested
an IRE, which was performed by James Sullivan, D.O. (Dr. Sullivan) on January 15,
2016. Dr. Sullivan determined that Claimant had a 6 percent impairment rating under
the 6th Edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of
Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) and 10 percent impairment based on the 4th
Edition of the AMA Guides.
               On February 1, 2016, Employer filed a Notice of Change of Workers’
Compensation Disability Status (Notice of Change), modifying Claimant’s disability
status from total to partial as of the date of the IRE. Claimant did not contest the Notice
of Change at the time of its filing. 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)2 as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), 161 A.3d
827 (Pa. 2017). On February 4, 2021, before the 500 weeks of his partial disability
expired,3 Claimant filed a Reinstatement Petition seeking a reinstatement of his TTD
benefits effective January 15, 2016, the date of the IRE, arguing that the Supreme
Court’s decision in Protz rendered the IRE void ab initio and that he should not lose

       1
        A claimant need not attend an IRE until after the claimant receives 104 weeks of total
compensation. Section 306(a.3) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 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(1).

       2
        Added by Section 4 of the Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350, formerly 77 P.S. § 511.2, repealed
by Act 111.

       3
          Section 306(b)(1) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 512(1), limits a claimant’s receipt of partial disability
benefits to 500 weeks.

                                                    2
234 weeks of partial disability benefits under a statute that has been deemed
unconstitutional.
              On April 8, 2021, before the WCJ, Claimant presented his sworn
testimony. Employer submitted medical records regarding Claimant’s activities and
reported history for several office visits. The WCJ found Claimant’s testimony
credible that he continues to suffer symptoms from his work injury that disabled him
from working. The WCJ rejected Employer’s attempt to discredit Claimant via
submitted medical records. By Decision dated September 3, 2021, the WCJ granted
the reinstatement of Claimant’s benefits back to TTD status as of February 4, 2021, the
date Claimant filed the Reinstatement Petition, based on this Court’s decision in
Whitfield v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tenet Health System Hahnemann
LLC), 188 A.3d 599 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (holding that the claimant, whose disability
status was modified pursuant to an IRE rendered invalid by Protz and who filed a
petition seeking reinstatement of total disability benefits within three years of her last
payment of compensation, was entitled to reinstatement as of the date she filed her
reinstatement petition, not the date of the original IRE).
              Claimant appealed to the Board, arguing that the WCJ erred in reinstating
the total disability status as of February 4, 2021, the date he filed the Reinstatement
Petition. On September 3, 2021, the Board found no error and affirmed the WCJ’s
Decision and Order. Claimant’s petition for review in this Court followed.
                                         DISCUSSION
              The sole issue presented is whether the WCJ erred in reinstating
Claimant’s benefits as of the date he filed his Reinstatement Petition.4 Claimant does

       4
         Our review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether
necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, and whether constitutional rights
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                 3
not address or dispute that the reinstatement date imposed by the WCJ and affirmed by
the Board was consistent with this Court’s decision in Whitfield. Instead, referencing
the Supreme Court’s decision in Dana Holding Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation
Appeal Board (Smuck), 232 A.3d 629 (Pa. 2020), he argues that the Supreme Court has
only addressed the issue of whether partial disability benefits should be reinstated to
TTD benefits where the underlying IRE conversion was already in litigation at the
time Protz was decided. He maintains that Dana Holding should be applied to all cases
where temporary partial disability benefits were being paid pursuant to an invalid IRE
at the time Protz was decided and that his TTD benefits should be reinstated back to
the original date of conversion.
              In Dana Holding, the Supreme Court addressed retroactive application of
Protz specifically regarding a scenario in which the pertinent constitutional challenge
was advanced during the course of direct appellate review. There, the claimant was in
the midst of challenging the modification of his disability status before a WCJ when
this Court issued its decision in Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Derry
Area School District), 124 A.3d 406 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), affirmed in part and reversed
in part, 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017), and his appeal of the WCJ’s decision was pending
before the Board when the Supreme Court decided Protz. Dana Holding, 232 A.3d at
633. The Supreme Court granted reinstatement back to the date of the original
conversion, explaining that “our present decision stands for the principle that the
general rule in Pennsylvania will be that, at least where prior judicial precedent [is not]
overruled, a holding of this Court that a statute is unconstitutional will generally be
applied to cases pending on direct appeal in which the constitutional challenge has
been raised and preserved.” Id. at 648-49 (emphasis added).

were violated. Department of Transportation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Clippinger),
38 A.3d 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

                                              4
             According to Claimant, the Supreme Court in Dana Holding “left open
the question of how to address a case, such as this[,] that [was] “open” and in which
[the claimant] was still receiving indemnity benefits pursuant to an IRE, but [was]
not in litigation when Protz[] was decided.” (Claimant’s Br. at 4) (emphasis added).
The language from Dana Holding upon which Claimant relies is as follows:

             At the present point in time, however, the Court is not of a
             mind to exclude the possibility of equitable balancing in
             extraordinary cases, particularly since no party [in] this
             appeal has advocated any such position.
Dana Holding, 232 A.3d at 649 (emphasis added).
             Claimant relies on the above-emphasized language to argue that the
“equitable balancing test” mentioned by the Supreme Court in Dana Holding warrants
full retroactivity of Protz in this instance. He contends that he should not be penalized
by losing approximately 234 weeks of partial benefits based on an invalid IRE. We
disagree that the facts or circumstances identified by Claimant render this matter
extraordinary such that it is distinguishable from Whitfield.
             In White v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia),
237 A.3d 1225, 1231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (en banc), appeal denied, 244 A.3d 1230
(Pa. 2021); the claimant’s disability status was changed to partial based on the results
of a Section 306(a.2) IRE, and, like here, the claimant did not initially challenge that
conversion. As here, before 500 weeks expired, the claimant sought a reinstatement to
total disability status and argued that the reinstatement should be effective as of the
date of the IRE, not the date of the reinstatement petition. This Court reviewed Dana
Holding and curtailed that decision to the situation where a claimant preserves a Protz
challenge to an IRE during direct review. In such a scenario, we explained, a claimant
is entitled to full retroactive application of the Protz decision and, consequently, the

                                           5
date of the IRE and conversion from total to partial disability will mark the date of
reinstatement of total disability benefits. However, this Court in White also reaffirmed
our decision in Whitfield and, in so doing, distinguished it from Dana Holding. We
clarified that under Whitfield, the result is different when a claimant challenges an IRE
on Protz grounds, not on direct review, but in a new petition after Protz was decided.
This Court held that, in that particular scenario, and in contrast to Dana Holding, “[the
claimant] was not litigating the underlying IRE when Protz [] was issued. [The
claimant’s] modification from total to partial disability was effective in 2013 and had
not been appealed. Accordingly, [the claimant] is entitled to reinstatement as of the
date of her reinstatement petition, not the effective date of the change in her disability
status from total to partial.” White, 237 A.3d at 1231 (emphasis added). See also
Weidenhammer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Albright College), 232 A.3d
986 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (rejecting the notion that the Supreme Court intended its ruling
in Protz to be given fully retroactive effect in cases that were not on direct appeal when
it was decided).
             This case is governed by Whitfield and White. Here, Employer issued a
Notice of Change converting Claimant’s disability status from total to partial effective
January 15, 2016, under former Section 306(a.2) of the Act. Claimant did not challenge
that decision. Unlike the claimant in Dana Holding, who had appealed and was still
disputing the initial modification of disability status when Protz was decided, Claimant
did not file his Reinstatement Petition seeking reinstatement in the instant case until
February 4, 2021, which was within the 500-week period but after the Supreme Court’s
decision in Protz was issued. Therefore, the WCJ correctly applied Whitfield and White
in this case by reinstating Claimant’s total disability status as of February 4, 2021, the

                                            6
date he filed his Reinstatement Petition, rather than January 15, 2016, the date of the
IRE.
            Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order.

                                           ________________________________
                                           PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

                                          7
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Craig A. Davis,                     :
                  Petitioner        :
                                    :    No. 141 C.D. 2022
            v.                      :
                                    :
XPO LTL Solutions (Workers’         :
Compensation Appeal Board),         :
                Respondent          :

                                 ORDER

            AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2023, the January 26, 2022
order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                        ________________________________
                                        PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge