Court Opinion

ID: 9961562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 13:09:58.732113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:58.489698
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Elisabel Folk,                                 :
                       Petitioner              :
      v.                                       :   No. 1603 C.D. 2022
                                               :
Kaolin Mushroom Farms, Inc.                    :
(Workers’ Compensation Appeal                  :
Board),                                        :
                Respondent                     :   Submitted: February 6, 2024

BEFORE:        HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge
               HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOLF                               FILED: April 19, 2024

               Elisabel Folk (Claimant) petitions for review of the order of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed a Workers’
Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) decision granting Claimant’s Claim Petition, in part,
under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act),1 and denying and dismissing her
Petition to Modify Compensation Benefits (Modification Petition).                     Claimant
contends that the WCJ’s finding that Claimant’s work injury was limited to “scrapes
and bruises and muscle pain of the neck and right shoulder” was in error and should
be reversed. WCJ’s Op. 9/21/2021, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 2a-14a, Finding of
Fact (F.F.) No. 11.       Kaolin Mushroom Farms, Inc. (Employer) disputes that any
further injuries or diagnoses are supported by substantial evidence. Upon review,
we affirm.

      1
          Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§1-1041.4; 2501-2710.
                                 I. BACKGROUND
             On November 2, 2020, Claimant filed a Claim Petition against
Employer seeking disability for work-related injuries she sustained because of a fall
on February 18, 2020. WCJ Opinion, R.R. at 4(a). Claimant alleged injuries
including a contusion to the right side of her face, and neck injuries resulting in
surgery at C2-C7. Claimant alleged temporary total disability from August 18, 2020
and ongoing surgical scarring. Id.
             On April 15, 2021, Claimant filed a Modification Petition alleging that
as of March 9, 2020, there was an incorrect description of her injuries because of
global weakness to both upper extremities and chronic bilateral shoulder pain with
a weak rotator cuff. The Petitions were consolidated for disposition before the WCJ.
WCJ Opinion, R.R. at 4(a).
             The WCJ summarized the evidence and made the following relevant
findings. Claimant worked for Employer as a fleet safety manager at the time of her
initial work-related injury and was responsible for overseeing the transportation
department and its drivers, doing vehicle registrations, and handling payroll and
accounts payable. WCJ Opinion, F.F. No.2(a).
             On February 18, 2020, Claimant, as part of her job duties, went to
Wiggins Auto and Tags in Kennet Square, Pennsylvania, to obtain a vehicle
registration for a newly purchased vehicle. As Claimant was leaving Wiggins, she
walked out the door, and stepped down two steps in front of the building and lost
her balance. Claimant hit the right side of her head and body against a cement wall.
Claimant sustained cuts to her face and believed she had a concussion. WCJ
Opinion, F.F. No. 2(c).

                                         2
             Claimant returned to work following the incident. Claimant used an
ice pack on her head during a subsequent meeting in which she informed her direct
supervisor, human resources director, and safety manager director of her fall and
injuries. WCJ Opinion, F.F. No. 2(d).
             Claimant sought care at an urgent care center in March 2020. WCJ
Opinion, F.F. No. 2(g). Claimant complained of pain in her neck and shoulder.
Claimant did not disclose any long-term injury or the fall. The urgent care center
did x-rays and provided Claimant with a prescription for a muscle relaxer. Id.
Claimant also saw her family physician, Dr. Narrinder Singh (Family Physician) in
March 2020 for anxiety issues relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and her job.
Claimant mentioned her fall during this visit. She received a prescription for anxiety
medication. Id., F.F. No. 2(h).
             Claimant again sought medical treatment on June 1, 2020 at Union
Hospital in Elkton, Maryland for numbness down both arms and in her face and
thighs. WCJ Opinion, F.F. No. 2(i). Claimant was prescribed medication and
referred back to Family Physician. Claimant had a follow-up appointment with
Family Physician approximately a week later. In between these appointments,
Claimant had discussions with her human resources manager related to her injuries
and her pain and numbness. Claimant spoke with Family Physician and insisted on
a magnetic resonance image (MRI) which occurred on June 25, 2020. Id., F.F. Nos.
2(i)-2(j)
             Claimant scheduled a surgical consultation with Dr. J. Rush Fisher, an
orthopedic surgeon (Surgeon), on July 6, 2020, resulting in a recommendation of
surgery. WCJ Opinion, F.F. No. 2(k). Claimant underwent cervical spinal surgery
on August 18, 2020. Due to surgical complications, Claimant was sent home by

                                          3
ambulance a few days later. Claimant returned for a subsequent surgery on August
27, 2020. Id.
              Claimant continues to have neck pain and numbness in both hands and
arms as well as her feet. WCJ Opinion, F.F. No. 2(m). She does not believe she can
return to work because she has issues sitting for extended periods of time. Id., F.F.
No. 2(n).
              Surgeon, Claimant’s expert witness, is a board-certified orthopedic
surgeon. Surgeon performed reconstructive surgery for Claimant’s cord syndrome.
The purpose was to decompress, realign and stabilize the surgical spine. Surgeon
opined the reason for these procedures was due to Claimant’s work-related injury on
February 18, 2020. WCJ Opinion, F.F. Nos. 3(a)-3(c). Further, Surgeon testified
that Claimant’s current condition is permanent. Id., F.F. No. 3(f).
              To support these findings, Surgeon referred to the June 25, 2020 MRI
which showed, in his opinion, that Claimant had a significant spinal cord injury.
Claimant was also suffering from very dense central cord syndrome. WCJ Opinion,
F.F. No. 2(j). Specifically, in regards to the MRI, Surgeon opined that this revealed
significant arthritis of the neck. Id., F.F. No. 3(d).
              Claimant was also examined by Dr. Scott Rushton (Dr. Rushton), on
February 5, 2021 for an independent medical examination. WCJ Opinion, F.F. No.
8(a). Dr. Rushton is board certified in orthopedic surgery and regularly performs
surgery in the nature of spine surgery in his capacity as assistant chief of orthopedics
and spine surgery for the Main Line Health System. Dr. Rushton Deposition, R.R.
at 248a.    Dr. Rushton opined that the February 18, 2020, incident did not contribute
or cause Claimant’s cervical spine injury.        Id., F.F. No. (8)(j).   Dr. Rushton
determined the medical records were not consistent with a traumatic injury to the

                                            4
cervical spine and that Claimant’s condition is related to a preexisting degenerative
spine disease. Id. Dr. Rushton opined Claimant had no restrictions related to the
work incident and could return to work. Dr. Rushton concluded her surgical issues
and subsequent surgery would impact her ability to return to work. Id., F.F. No.
8(k).
              By decision dated September 21, 2021, the WCJ granted the Claim
Petition, in part, for injuries related to the February 18, 2020 fall including scrapes,
bruises, and muscle pain of the neck and right shoulder. WCJ Opinion, F.F. No. 12.
The WCJ then denied and dismissed the Modification Petition concluding that
Claimant failed to prove that her injury on February 18, 2020, resulted in disability.
Id. The WCJ reviewed the findings of both Surgeon and Dr. Rushton and found
Surgeon to be neither credible nor persuasive. Id., F.F. No. 9. Alternatively, the
WCJ found the testimony of Dr. Rushton to be credible and persuasive. Id., F.F. No.
10. The WCJ found Dr. Rushton’s opinions the most consistent with the timeline of
events. Id.
              Claimant timely appealed the WCJ’s decision to the Board.              By
decision dated March 22, 2022, the Board affirmed. Board Opinion, 3/22/22, R.R.
at 16a-29a. In its decision, the Board noted “[t]he WCJ thoroughly and accurately
summarized the evidence and witness testimony and made well-reasoned credibility
determinations to reach her conclusions.” Id., R.R. at 27a. Claimant then petitioned
for review to this Court.
                                     II. ISSUES
              Claimant argues that the WCJ erred in determining she had not met her
burden of proof as to her disability. Claimant believes that she demonstrated,
through substantial, credible, and persuasive evidence and expert medical testimony,

                                           5
that she sustained a cervical spinal cord injury and developed dense central cord
syndrome as a result of the February 18, 2020 work-related incident, causing her
total disability and the need for ongoing medical treatment. Claimant’s Brief at 18.
Based on Surgeon’s and Claimant’s own testimony, Claimant asserts the Board’s
affirmance of the WCJ’s decision was an abuse of discretion, an error of law, and
was not supported by substantial evidence. Id.
               In response, Employer asserts “[Claimant’s] arguments on appeal are
nothing more than an impermissible challenge to the credibility determinations of
the WCJ.” Employer’s Brief at 25. Employer further states:

               [T]he pertinent inquiry is not whether the evidence can be
               interpreted to support the result desired by [Claimant], but
               whether there is evidence that can be reasonably
               interpreted to support the WCJ’s actual decision. . . .
               While [Claimant] was dissatisfied with the outcome, the
               WCJ’s decision was fully supported by the evidentiary
               record and [well reasoned]. . . .
Employer’s Brief at 26 (citation omitted).
               Employer also raises an issue concerning the timeliness of Claimant’s
appeal.2

       2
          Employer argues that Claimant failed to preserve her appeal because her petition for
review was untimely. We do not agree. In this case, Claimant, through counsel, initiated this
action on April 20, 2022, by filing a brief in support of her arguments on appeal rather than filing
a petition for review as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1511. Claimant’s brief/initiating document was
filed within the 30-day appeal period. See Pa.R.A.P. 1512. On February 28, 2023, the
Commonwealth Court Prothonotary issued a letter pursuant to the Commonwealth Court’s Internal
Operating Procedures, Section 211, 210 Pa.Code §69.211, directing Claimant to file her petition
for review within 30 days of the Prothonotary’s letter. Claimant filed a timely conforming petition
for review on March 27, 2023. Under the circumstances, it is apparent that Claimant preserved
her appeal by filing an initiating document on April 20, 2022. To the extent Employer seeks to
have Claimant’s appeal quashed as untimely, the Court will not take such action.

                                                 6
                                 III. DISCUSSION
             Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §704, limits
the Court’s “scope of review to determining whether constitutional rights have been
violated, whether an error of law was committed and whether necessary findings of
fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Morocho v. Workers’ Compensation
Appeal Board (Home Equity Renovations, Inc.), 167 A.3d 855, 858 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2017) (citing Johnson v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Dubois Courier
Express), 631 A.2d 693 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)). Substantial evidence is defined as:

             such relevant evidence a reasonable person might find
             sufficient to support the WCJ’s findings.’ Rosenberg v.
             Workers’ [Compensation] Appeal [Board] (Pike County),
             942 A.2d 254, 249 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).             In
             determining whether a finding of fact is supported by
             substantial evidence, this Court must consider the
             evidence as a whole, view the evidence in a light most
             favorable to the party who prevailed before the WCJ, and
             draw all reasonable inferences which are deducible from
             the evidence in favor of the prevailing party.

Frog, Switch & Manufacturing Company v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal
Board (Johnson), 106 A.3d 202, 206 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (citing O’Rourke v.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Gartland), 83 A.3d 1125, 1132 n. 6 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2014)). The WCJ acts as the sole factfinder to assess credibility and to
resolve conflicts in the evidence. Hoffmaster v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal
Board (Senco Products, Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). In cases where
both parties provide evidence, it is not material if the record supports an alternative

                                          7
finding. Id. It is solely the responsibility of the WCJ to determine what weight to
give to any evidence. Id. Once the WCJ makes a credibility determination it can
only be disturbed if “it is arbitrary and capricious or so fundamentally dependent on
a misapprehension of material facts, or so otherwise flawed, as to render it
irrational.” Casne v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (STAT Couriers, Inc.),
962 A.2d 14, 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). The WCJ issued the following relevant
Findings of Fact:

             9. Based on a review of the evidence as a whole, this Judge
             finds the testimony of [Surgeon] to be neither credible nor
             persuasive. [Surgeon’s] opinions are not consistent with
             the timeline of the injury and onset of symptoms as
             documented in the medical records. [Surgeon] admitted
             that the medical records do not document neurological
             symptoms during several medical visits prior to July 6,
             2020 and admitted that Claimant had significant
             degeneration in her cervical spine.

             10. Based on a review of the evidence as a whole, this
             Judge finds the testimony of Dr. Rushton to be credible
             and persuasive and accepts the same as fact. Dr.
             Rushton’s opinions are most consistent with the timeline
             of events and onset of symptoms as documented in the
             records as well as Claimant’s degenerative cervical spine
             condition.

             11. Based on a review of the evidence as a whole, this
             Judge finds the testimony of Claimant regarding the cause
             of her cervical spine and shoulder injuries and resulting
             disability to be neither credible nor persuasive. This Judge
             finds it credible that Claimant did, in fact, fall into a
             concrete wall when she lost her balance on February 18,
             2020, but this Judge does not find it credible that she
             sustained the injuries that she alleged and resulting
             disability. Claimant’s allegations are not supported by the
             history provided in the medical records and the allegations
             are not consistent with Claimant’s treatment weeks later.

                                          8
            This Judge finds it credible that Claimant sustained an
            injury on February 18, 2020 that resulted in scrapes and
            bruises and muscle pain of the neck and right shoulder, but
            Claimant could work without restriction because of this
            injury. It was not until more than two weeks later that
            Claimant sought treatment and then the treatment was not
            initially for numbness, but rather cervical and shoulder
            pain and she did not provide a history of her February fall.
            She then sought treatment for unrelated anxiety issues
            with no real mention of symptoms related to her fall. She
            treated again in June 2020 wherein she again complains of
            neck and shoulder pain but says the onset was March 2020.
            She denied a recent fall and there was no reported
            weakness. It was not until mid-June that Claimant
            described her February fall but admitted that she did not
            have an onset of symptoms until a month later. There were
            no myelopathic symptoms documented at that time.

            12. Based on a review of the evidence as a whole, this
            Judge finds that Claimant met her burden of proving a
            relatively minor injury on February 18, 2020 but failed to
            prove that it resulted in disability. Employer essentially
            agreed that the incident occurred on February 18, 2020.
            Arguably her first treatment in early March at Express
            Care may have been related to that injury if given the
            benefit of the doubt. However, Claimant failed to prove
            that she sustained injuries more serious than scrapes and
            bruises and muscle pain of the neck and right shoulder or
            that her injuries resulted in disability.

WCJ Opinion, F.F. Nos. 9-12.
            The Board summarized the testimony and findings of the WCJ and
concluded, “The WCJ thoroughly and accurately summarized the evidence and
witness testimony and made well-reasoned credibility determinations to reach her
conclusions.” Board Opinion, R.R. at 27(a). The Board further observed, “This
illustrates that the WCJ did not act arbitrarily in making her credibility
determinations and they may not be disturbed on appeal.” Id.

                                         9
             On appeal to this Court, Claimant alleges that there are numerous
inconsistencies in the WCJ’s Findings of Fact, and that the WCJ abused her
discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously by rejecting Surgeon’s testimony
and instead relying upon the testimony of Dr. Rushton. Claimant challenges the
competency of Dr. Rushton’s determinations, asserting he did not review Claimant’s
testimony wherein she indicated that after striking the wall, she was bruised, scraped,
had a swollen eye, was bleeding, and believed she was concussed.
             Further, Claimant testified that she did not have neck problems prior to
the fall and had not been treated for such issues. Claimant’s Brief at 17. Claimant
argues that for this to be a preexisting degenerative disease, she should have had
some prior issues or diagnoses. Id. Claimant also testified that she had not had any
other intervening incidents following the fall on February 18, 2020 and her surgery
in August 2020. Id. Claimant also disputes Dr. Rushton’s report stating:

             Dr. Rushton agreed that a patient can have asymptomatic
             degenerative conditions that become symptomatic with
             trauma, that an injury to a degenerative spine can depend
             on the mechanism of injury, such as body position, force
             generated and degree of degenerative changes, and that
             tripping and falling into a cement wall with enough force
             that causes cuts and bleeding can cause previous
             asymptomatic degenerative changes to become painful or
             symptomatic.

Claimant’s Brief at 17.

             Claimant avers that the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence that
the February 18, 2020 fall caused her cervical spine injury and degenerative spine
disease.   Therefore, both the WCJ and Board erred in finding Dr. Rushton’s
testimony to be both credible and persuasive and, as such, substantial evidence.

                                          10
Further, the decision of the WCJ and the Board should be reversed due to an abuse
of discretion, an error of law, and unsupported factual findings.
      This is not the case. Dr. Rushton testified that such a fall could aggravate
asymptomatic degenerative changes causing them to become symptomatic;
however, Dr. Rushton explained that this also requires contemporaneous medical
records following the injury. Certified Record, Exhibit No. 23, Deposition of Scott
A. Rushton, M.D., 6/17/21 at 42; 71. The fall happened on February 18, 2020 and
Claimant did not seek medical treatment until March 9, 2020 – 19 days after the
initial fall. Here, there are no contemporaneous medical records that provide
objective evidence to substantiate a cervical spine injury because of the fall on
February 18, 2020. We agree with the Board that, viewing Dr. Rushton’s testimony
as a whole, it was not based on inaccurate information or such a misunderstanding
of the mechanism of injury to render his opinion incompetent.
      “The [WCJ] is free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness, including
medical witnesses, in whole or in part.” Greenwich Collieries v. Workmen’s
Compensation Appeal Board (Buck), 664 A.2d 703, 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). The
fact that one party to a proceeding may view testimony differently than the fact
finder is not grounds for reversal if the findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Tapco, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 650 A.2d
1106, 1108–09 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). Further, a medical expert’s opinion is not
rendered incompetent unless it is solely based on inaccurate or false information.
American Contracting Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Board Appeal
Board, 789 A.2d 391, 396 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (emphasis supplied). That is not the
case here. Indeed, Dr. Rushton’s opinion is not based on inaccurate or false
information, it is based on a lack of medical records contemporaneous to the

                                         11
February 18, 2022 fall. Contrary to Claimant’s assertions, this does not make Dr.
Rushton’s testimony incompetent.
            As Claimant’s arguments on appeal amount to nothing more than an
impermissible challenge to the WCJ’s credibility determinations, and for reasons
stated above, we affirm the Board’s order.

                                      __________________________________
                                      MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

                                        12
           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Elisabel Folk,                      :
                 Petitioner         :
      v.                            :   No. 1603 C.D. 2022
                                    :
Kaolin Mushroom Farms, Inc.         :
(Workers’ Compensation Appeal       :
Board),                             :
                Respondent          :

                                ORDER

      AND NOW, this 19th day of April 2024, the order of the Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is AFFIRMED.

                                  __________________________________
                                  MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge