Court Opinion

ID: 9404588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 15:09:29.212695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.469277
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Derek Everage,                                   :
                       Petitioner                :
                                                 :
               v.                                :
                                                 :
City of Philadelphia (Workers’                   :
Compensation Appeal Board),                      :   No. 631 C.D. 2022
                   Respondent                    :   Submitted: March 24, 2023

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

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                                    FILED: June 23, 2023

               Derek Everage (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the
Workers’ Compensation (WC) Appeal Board’s (Board) May 25, 2022 order
affirming WC Judge Erin Young’s (WCJ Young) October 15, 2021 decision (2021
WCJ Decision) that granted the City of Philadelphia’s (Employer) Petition to
Terminate WC Benefits (Termination Petition). Claimant presents one issue for this
Court’s review: whether Employer met its burden of proving that Claimant fully
recovered from his work-related injury. After review, this Court affirms.
               Claimant worked as an asphalt raker for Employer.1 On February 13,
2018, while pushing asphalt through a chute, Claimant heard a pop and experienced

       1
          Claimant’s job as an asphalt raker was very physical, requiring him to use an 85-pound
jackhammer for street repairs, shovel large asphalt pieces and throw them into a truck, rake large
amounts of asphalt out of a truck, smooth the asphalt to fill the hole, and tamp the asphalt down
with a 65- to 70-pound tamper. See Certified Record Item 14, April 29, 2021 Notes of Testimony
(N.T.) at 11-13, 32, 50, 52. The job entails repetitive lifting, bending, and squatting. See N.T. at
13.
stabbing pain in his groin, stomach, and legs. Claimant was diagnosed with an
abdomen/groin strain, for which he underwent right inguinal hernia surgery repair
by William Meis, D.O. (Dr. Meis), on March 20, 2018. On March 27, 2018,
Employer issued a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable, pursuant to which
it paid Claimant total disability benefits.
              On or about May 7, 2018, Claimant returned to full-duty work with
Employer, and felt a pop in his lower abdomen and pain like he experienced with
his initial work injury. Claimant attempted to work for two days, but treated at the
emergency room on May 9, 2018, where an examination revealed Claimant had right
groin swelling and tenderness and blood in his stool. Claimant’s computerized
tomography scan was negative, and he was told to follow up with his doctor. On
May 14, 2018, Claimant treated with Dr. Meis who initially concluded that Claimant
could return to work but, after understanding the heavy-duty nature of Claimant’s
job duties, declared that Claimant was unable to return to work until August 8, 2018.
              Due to ongoing complaints of right groin pain that extended into his leg
and lower back, Claimant began treating with Michael McCoy, M.D. (Dr. McCoy),
in June 2018. Dr. McCoy diagnosed Claimant with inguinal hernia repair status
post-surgery and related back pain resulting from his February 13, 2018 work injury,
declared Claimant disabled from his time-of-injury job (but he could do a light-duty
or sedentary job), and recommended Claimant undergo physical therapy, which he
did.2
              On June 13, 2018, Claimant filed a Petition to Reinstate WC Benefits
(Reinstatement Petition), again requesting total disability benefits. On or about July
19, 2018, Employer filed a Petition to Modify/Suspend WC Benefits
(Modification/Suspension Petition), therein alleging that Claimant had fully

        2
          From June 28, 2018 to March 10, 2020, Claimant’s therapy consisted of therapeutic
exercise and activity, and electric stimulation.
                                              2
recovered from his work-related injuries. Claimant denied Employer’s claims. On
or about August 19, 2018, Employer filed a Petition to Terminate WC Benefits (First
Termination Petition). On January 28, 2019, Dennis McHugh, M.D. (Dr. McHugh),
performed an independent medical evaluation (IME) on Claimant. Dr. McHugh
declared that Claimant did not sustain a back injury in the February 13, 2018 work
accident, and that Claimant had fully recovered from his work injury.3
               WCJ Patricia Bachman (WCJ Bachman) held hearings at which
Claimant presented Dr. McCoy’s testimony, and Employer presented Dr. McHugh’s
and Dr. Meis’ medical testimony. WCJ Bachman found Dr. McCoy credible, and
accepted as fact his testimony relative to Claimant’s ongoing right inguinal hernia
pain. On November 26, 2019, WCJ Bachman denied Employer’s First Termination
Petition and Modification/Suspension Petition on the basis that Employer failed to
prove that Claimant was fully recovered from his February 13, 2018 work injury,
and dismissed Claimant’s Reinstatement Petition as moot (2019 WCJ Decision).
Employer did not appeal from the 2019 WCJ Decision.
               On July 27, 2020, Lorenz Iannorone, M.D. (Dr. Iannorone) conducted
an IME on Claimant. Dr. Iannorone concluded that Claimant had no objective
findings related to his hernia repair and that Claimant’s subjective complaints were
not related to the work injury; thus, Claimant had fully recovered from his work-
related injuries and was able to return to work without restrictions. Based on the
IME, Employer filed the Termination Petition, therein arguing that Claimant’s work-
related injury had ceased. Claimant denied Employer’s allegations.4 WCJ Young

       3
          Claimant was involved in several motor vehicle accidents in 2018 and 2019, in which he
sustained injuries, including to his back. Dr. McCoy treated Claimant for the injuries sustained in
those accidents. However, WCJ Young found that none of Claimant’s myriad of injuries resulting
from those motor vehicle accidents overlapped with his work-related hernia injury. See 2021 WCJ
Dec. at 8.
        4
          Employer also requested supersedeas which WCJ Young denied on October 7, 2020.
                                                3
conducted hearings on September 14, 2020, and February 22 and April 29, 2021, at
which the parties presented, inter alia, Dr. McCoy’s and Dr. Iannorone’s testimony.
On October 15, 2021, having found Dr. Iannorone’s testimony more credible than
Dr. McCoy’s, WCJ Young granted the Termination Petition on the basis that
Employer met its burden of proving that Claimant fully recovered from his work
injury as of July 27, 2020.
               Claimant appealed to the Board, arguing that, based on Lewis v.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Giles & Ransome, Inc.), 919 A.2d 922 (Pa.
2007), WCJ Young erred by terminating Claimant’s WC benefits in the absence of
medical evidence that a change had occurred in his condition since the 2019 WCJ
Decision. On May 25, 2022, the Board affirmed the 2021 WCJ Decision. Claimant
appealed to this Court.5
               Claimant argues that WCJ Young erred by failing to find and/or
conclude that Claimant experienced a change in his condition after the 2019 WCJ
Decision, and Dr. Iannorone’s testimony that Claimant had fully recovered from his
work-related injury was legally incompetent because he misapprehended the correct
description of Claimant’s accepted work injury.
               Section 413(a) of the WC Act (Act)6 states, in pertinent part:

               A [WCJ] . . . may, at any time, . . . terminate . . . an award
               of . . . [a WCJ], upon petition filed by either party . . . ,
               upon proof that the disability[7] of an injured employe has
               . . . finally ceased . . . . Such . . . termination shall be made

       5
          “[This Court’s] review is limited to determining whether the WCJ’s findings of fact were
supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed[,] or whether
constitutional rights were violated.” DiLaqua v. City of Phila. Fire Dep’t (Workers’ Comp. Appeal
Bd.), 268 A.3d 1, 4 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (quoting Bristol Borough v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal
Bd. (Burnett), 206 A.3d 585, 595 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019)).
        6
          Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4, 2501-2710.
        7
          “Under [WC] law, the term ‘disability’ is synonymous with loss of earning power.”
Donahay v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Skills of Cent. PA, Inc.), 109 A.3d 787, 792 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2015).
                                                4
               as of the date upon which it is shown that the disability of
               the injured employe has . . . finally ceased[.]

77 P.S. § 772. To succeed in a termination petition, an employer must prove by
substantial evidence that the claimant’s work-related injury has ceased, or any
remaining conditions are not related to his work injury. See Baumann v. Workers’
Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kellogg Co.), 147 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). “An employer
may satisfy this burden by presenting unequivocal and competent medical evidence
of the claimant’s full recovery from [his] work-related injuries.” Westmoreland
Cnty. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Fuller), 942 A.2d 213, 217 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2008). Such medical expert testimony must recognize the claimant’s accepted work-
related injury to be competent to opine that the claimant has fully recovered
therefrom. See Sarmiento-Hernandez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Ace Am. Ins.
Co.), 179 A.3d 105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018); see also Westmoreland Cnty.
               Moreover, in Lewis, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained:

               In order to terminate benefits on the theory that a
               claimant’s disability has reduced or ceased due to an
               improvement of physical ability, it is first necessary that
               the employer[’]s petition be based upon medical proof of
               a change in the claimant’s physical condition. Only then
               can the [WCJ] determine whether the change in physical
               condition has effectuated a change in the claimant’s
               disability, i.e., the loss of his earning power. Further, by
               natural extension it is necessary that, where there have
               been prior petitions to modify or terminate benefits, the
               employer must demonstrate a change in physical
               condition[8] since the last disability determination.
               Absent this requirement “a disgruntled employer (or
               claimant) could repeatedly attack what he considers an
               erroneous decision of a referee by filing petitions based on
               the same evidence ad infinitum, in the hope that one

       8
        The Lewis Court clarified that “‘[c]hange of condition,’ [as opposed to disability], is any
change in the claimant’s physical well[-]being that affects his ability to work. It can be the total
recovery from an illness or merely that the symptoms subside.” Id. at 926 (quoting City of Phila.
v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Szparagowski), 831 A.2d 577, 585 (Pa. 2003)).
                                                 5
             [WCJ] would finally decide in his favor.” Dillon [v.
             Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Greenwich Collieries)],
             640 A.2d [386,] 389 [(Pa. 1994) (]quoting Banks v.
             W[orkmen’s] C[omp.] A[ppeal] B[d.], . . . 327 A.2d 404,
             406 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1974)[)].

Lewis, 919 A.2d at 926 (emphasis added).         An employer’s medical expert is
“required to accept as true the adjudicated fact that a condition existed and opine as
to whether the condition continues to exist at the time of the examination.” Folmer
v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Swift Transp.), 958 A.2d 1137, 1147 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2008).

             This Court has recognized that the evidence necessary to
             prove a change since a prior adjudication “will be different
             in each case.” Folmer, 958 A.2d at 1144. “[B]y accepting
             the employer’s medical evidence of full recovery as
             credible, a WCJ could properly make a finding that the
             employer has met the standard set forth in Lewis [of] a
             change in [the c]laimant’s condition.” Del[.] Cnty. v.
             Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Browne), 964 A.2d 29, 35
             (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (emphasis added); see also Johnson v.
             Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bucks Cnty. Intermediate
             Unit) . . . (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1232 C.D. 2010, filed Feb[.]
             26, 2013). Moreover, although the WCJ’s finding cannot
             be based solely upon evidence that pre-dates the previous
             adjudication, id.[,] it may be based upon a review of such
             evidence plus a post-adjudication examination. See
             Adams v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cmty. Behavior[]al
             Health) . . . (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1368 C.D. 2010, filed May
             19, 2011); see also Krnaich v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.
             (Allegheny Ludlum Corp.) . . . (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 215 C.D.
             2014, filed Sept[.] 3, 2014); Johnson. Finally, “it is not
             necessary [for the employer] to demonstrate that a
             claimant’s diagnoses have changed since the last
             proceeding, but only that his symptoms have improved
             to the point where he is capable of gainful
             employment.” Simmons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.
             (Powertrack Int’l), 96 A.3d 1143, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth.
             2014) (emphasis added). This Court has declared that a
             change sufficient to satisfy the Lewis requirement exists
             if there is a lack of objective findings to substantiate a

                                          6
              claimant’s continuing complaints. See Adams; see also
              Krnaich.
Baumann, 147 A.3d at 1291 (emphasis in original; footnotes omitted).9
              In the 2019 WCJ Decision regarding the First Termination Petition,
WCJ Bachman accepted Dr. McCoy’s diagnosis, acknowledged by Employer’s
expert medical witness Dr. Meis, that Claimant continued to suffer from his work-
related inguinal hernia status post-surgical repair. See 2019 WCJ Dec. at 6-7.
              Relative to the Termination Petition, Employer presented Dr.
Iannorone’s October 26, 2020 deposition testimony. Dr. Iannorone testified that he
reviewed Claimant’s medical records and Dr. McCoy’s deposition prior to the July
27, 2020 IME, in addition to interviewing and examining Claimant at the IME. See
Certified Record (C.R.)10 Item 23, Dr. Iannorone Oct. 26, 2020 N.T. at 12-14. Dr.
Iannorone recalled Claimant reporting that he has bloody stools, ongoing back and
stomach pain, and pain in his perineum, lower abdomen and groin, and down the
inside of his lower extremity since his March 2018 surgery. See id. at 17-18, 43.
Dr. Iannorone described that Claimant had no evidence of scar tissue, and, although
he exhibited tenderness over both groins (the right a little more than the left), both
were “within the realm of normal.” Id. at 22; see also id. at 23, 26-27. Dr. Iannorone
further asserted that Claimant’s complaints of bloody stools, and perineum, back and
lower extremity pain are not related to his work accident because they are not
connected to inguinal hernias. See id. at 28-29.

       9
            This Court’s unreported memorandum opinions may be cited “for [their] persuasive
value, but not as a binding precedent.” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal
Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). The unreported cases cited herein are cited for
their persuasive value.
         10
             Because the parties only included limited excerpts of the hearing and deposition
transcripts in the Reproduced Record and Supplemental Reproduced Record, this Court reviewed
the full testimony in the Certified Record documents and, thus, cites thereto.
                                              7
               Specifically, Dr. Iannorone expressed:

               [W]hen [Claimant] complained of his pain, it’s described
               as . . . [a]ching, throbbing, shooting, stabbing, sharp,
               burning, exhausting, tiring, penetrating and with
               numbness. And he can’t do anything. He can’t sit too
               long. He can’t stand too long. He can’t have intercourse
               anymore. And when I asked him what he took for his pain,
               since it was excruciating and miserable, he said he doesn't
               take anything. . . . That doesn’t make sense -- just doesn’t
               add up, period.

Id. at 30.
               Ultimately, Dr. Iannorone acknowledged the accepted work injury and
concluded:

               Q[.] Assuming [Claimant suffered a hernia status post
               hernia repair and any back pain resulting therefrom
               resolved by October 9, 2018, as WCJ Bachman previously
               found], do you have an opinion, within a reasonable
               degree of medical certainty, whether or not [] [C]laimant
               fully recovered from his hernia, status post[-]hernia repair,
               that he suffered as a result of the February 13, 2018 work
               activities?
               A[.] Yes. I thought [Claimant] was fully recovered when
               I saw him as of July 27, 2020.

Id. at 28 (emphasis added).11 Dr. Iannorone further declared: “[Claimant was] fully
healed” from the inguinal hernia and, although he may want to rethink returning
to his pre-injury job due to his age, “[Claimant] can do it.” Id. at 31 (emphasis
added). Dr. Iannorone did not testify that Claimant’s condition changed after WCJ
Bachman issued the 2019 WCJ Decision.

       11
          Claimant argues that Dr. Iannorone questioned whether Claimant suffered an indirect
inguinal hernia because he testified that “[m]ost indirect hernias are congenital in nature, while
most direct inguinal hernias occur because of a tear.” Dr. Iannorone 10/26/2020 N.T. at 40.
However, in rendering his conclusion, Dr. Iannorone agreed that Claimant’s accepted work injury
was inguinal hernia status post-surgical repair. See id. at 28.
                                                8
             In opposition to the Termination Petition, Claimant testified and
presented Dr. McCoy’s March 13, 2019, and March 31, 2021 deposition transcripts.
Claimant testified that his groin/testicular pain has been ongoing since his surgery,
he continues to treat with Dr. McCoy and attends physical therapy, and he has been
unable to return to work. See C.R. Item 14, April 29, 2021 N.T. at 20-23, 29-20.
Claimant described that he experiences sharp and shooting groin pain (level 8 on a
1-10 scale) and testicular pain (level 6-8 on a 1-10 scale), like getting kicked in the
groin, on his right and left, that travels into his hamstrings. See id. at 26-27, 30-31.
He claims that he is unable to sit for long periods of time, and bending is difficult.
See id. at 25, 27, 30. Claimant articulated that his pain makes it difficult to complete
home activities, like cleaning, without having to regularly stop and rest because of
pain. See id. at 31-32. Claimant stated that his physical therapy sessions help, but
that his pain returns within a few hours thereafter. See id. at 23-27. He explained
that his pain keeps him from attending his church and visiting his grandchildren in
Maryland as often as he did in the past. See id. at 65. Claimant asserted that,
although he previously took medications to alleviate pain, he discontinued them
because he “was worried about having a problem with that.” Id. at 32-33.
             According to Dr. McCoy’s March 31, 2021 deposition transcript, he
reviewed his March 13, 2019 deposition and continues to stand by his testimony.
See C.R. Item 15, Mar. 31, 2021 N.T. at 6-7. He also reviewed Claimant’s medical
records since March 2019, including Dr. Iannorone’s IME report and testimony
related thereto. See id. at 8-9. Dr. McCoy confirmed that he treated Claimant seven
times in 2019, approximately monthly in 2020, and in March 2021, for ongoing right
side groin pain extending into his right testicle related to his accepted work-related
inguinal hernia, Claimant continued physical therapy which provides temporary
relief, and he has not released Claimant to return to his pre-injury job. See id. at 8-
14, 28-29. Dr. McCoy described Claimant’s ongoing complaints to include pain
                                           9
with prolonged standing and walking, and problems defecating. See id. at 10, 13-
14. Dr. McCoy articulated that Claimant’s ongoing symptoms were “signs of having
essentially a failed hernia repair” because of the mesh and scar tissue. Id. at 14; see
also id. at 23.    Since March 2020, Dr. McCoy prescribed Claimant Motrin,
Lidocaine, and Cialis. See id. at 15.
             Dr. McCoy’s diagnosis remained “right inguinal hernia status post[-]
surgical repair” causally related to Claimant’s February 13, 2018 work incident, and
he opined that, although Claimant could probably do a sedentary job, he was unable
to return to his time-of-injury job. Id. at 17; see also id. at 16, 18-23. Dr. McCoy
expounded:

             It’s my opinion that this is permanent. . . . [T]ypically,
             when you have these kinds of issues, you go and take the
             mesh out. [Claimant] doesn’t want to have any[]more
             surgery done. He is like, look, I’m just going to live with
             it. If that’s the case, he was [sic] going to be this way for
             the duration.

Id. at 23. Therefore, Dr. McCoy stated that he has not referred Claimant to another
doctor to determine whether further surgery was an option, or whether something
else is causing Claimant’s pain. See id. at 27, 30.

             [T]he primary role of the WCJ is well settled:
                  The WCJ is the fact[-]finder, and it is solely for the
                  WCJ . . . to assess credibility and to resolve
                  conflicts in the evidence. Neither the Board nor
                  this Court may reweigh the evidence or the WCJ’s
                  credibility determinations. In addition, it is solely
                  for the WCJ, as the fact[-]finder, to determine what
                  weight to give to any evidence. . . . As such, the
                  WCJ may reject the testimony of any witness in
                  whole or in part, even if that testimony is
                  uncontradicted.
             Hawbaker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kriner’s
             Quality Roofing Servs. & Uninsured Emp. Guar. Fund),

                                           10
             159 A.3d 61, 69 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (internal citations,
             quotations, and brackets omitted). “Determining the
             credibility of the witnesses is the quintessential function
             of the fact[-]finder . . . . It is not an exact science, and the
             ultimate conclusion comprises far more than a tally sheet
             of its various components.” Dorsey v. Workers’ Comp.
             Appeal Bd. (Crossing Constr. Co.), 893 A.2d 191, 195-96
             (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (declining to “dissect and analyze
             each of the WCJ’s reasons for his credibility
             determination”). An appellate tribunal must view the
             WCJ’s reasoning as a whole and may overturn a credibility
             determination only if it is arbitrary and capricious, so
             fundamentally dependent on a misapprehension of
             material facts, or so otherwise flawed, as to render it
             irrational. See Casne v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.
             (STAT Couriers, Inc., and State Workers’ Ins. Fund), 962
             A.2d 14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cochenour),
251 A.3d 467, 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021).
             Here, based on the evidence presented at the April 29, 2021 hearing,
WCJ Young granted the Termination Petition, concluding that Employer sustained
its burden of proof based on the following factual findings:

             9. Having had an opportunity to view Claimant’s
             demeanor and comportment when he testified live via
             video before [WCJ Young], [WCJ Young] finds Claimant
             to be neither credible nor persuasive in this instance. In
             making this determination, [WCJ Young] relies on the
             following: Claimant has not sought additional
             treatment with a surgeon to further correct the original
             injury and, while he rates his pain high on a scale of one
             to ten, he does not take any medication for the pain.
             10. [WCJ Young] has carefully reviewed the testimony of
             Dr. Iann[o]rone and finds the same to be credible and
             persuasive. In making this determination, [WCJ Young]
             relies on the following: Dr. Iann[o]rone is a surgeon who
             routinely performs the type of surgery that Claimant
             underwent. Dr. Iann[o]rone performed a thorough
             physical examination and reviewed relevant medical
             records. Dr. Iann[o]rone explained why the surgery to

                                           11
             repair the hernia did not result in any scarring, explained
             that Claimant’s current complaints would not stem from
             the type of hernia that Claimant sustained, and explained
             that the ongoing testicular complaints of sensitivity are
             within the realm of what is considered normal with respect
             to the male anatomy.
             11. [WCJ Young] has carefully reviewed the testimony of
             Dr. McCoy and, to the extent that Dr. McCoy’s opinions
             are contrary to the credible opinions of Dr. Iann[o]rone,
             [WCJ Young] finds the same to be neither credible nor
             persuasive. In making this determination, [WCJ Young]
             relies on the following: Dr. McCoy has not referred
             Claimant to a surgeon to determine if additional surgery
             would be necessary to address Claimant’s continued
             complaints. Dr. McCoy has relied upon, at least in part,
             Claimant’s complaints of pain in rendering his opinions.
             As [WCJ Young] has found Claimant to be incredible in
             this regard, Dr. McCoy’s opinion as to ongoing disability
             is incompetent.

2021 WCJ Dec. at 8 (Reproduced Record at 8a) (emphasis added).
             WCJ Young weighed the credibility of Claimant and the medical
witnesses to determine that Employer’s evidence proved that Claimant’s work-
related injury ceased, or any remaining conditions are not related to his work injury.
See Baumann; see also Westmoreland Cnty. Substantial record evidence supported
WCJ Young’s findings of fact and conclusions. Although WCJ Young did not
reference the Lewis standard or make a specific finding that Claimant’s condition
changed since the 2019 WCJ Decision was issued, “by accepting [] [E]mployer’s
medical evidence of [Claimant’s] full recovery as credible, [] WCJ [Young] []
properly ma[d]e a finding that [] [E]mployer [] met the standard set forth in Lewis
[of] a change in Claimant’s condition.” Baumann, 147 A.3d at 1291 (quoting Del.
Cnty., 964 A.2d at 35) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the Board properly
affirmed the 2021 WCJ Decision.

                                         12
Based on the foregoing, the Board’s order is affirmed.

                         _________________________________
                         ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

                           13
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Derek Everage,                         :
                  Petitioner           :
                                       :
            v.                         :
                                       :
City of Philadelphia (Workers’         :
Compensation Appeal Board),            :   No. 631 C.D. 2022
                   Respondent          :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 23rd day of June, 2023, the Workers’ Compensation
Appeal Board’s May 25, 2022 order is affirmed.

                                    _________________________________
                                    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge