Court Opinion

ID: 9718722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:31:44.730545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:01.947530
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge COHN JUBELIRER.
I concur with the result of the majority opinion. I write separately, however, because I disagree with the majority’s characterization of Dr. Molter’s testimony.
The majority states that Dr. Molter “opined that [Claimant’s] job duties could aggravate an existing condition but that there was no way to know it; further, [Dr. Molter testified that] ‘[a]n exacerbation is not the cause of something.’ ” Liveringhouse v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (ADECCO), 970 A.2d 508 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (third alteration in original) (quoting Molter Dep. at 35). The majority then states that “Dr. Molter’s opinions are flatly contrary to Pennsylvania law.... Also, it is beyond cavil that ‘the Act specifically contemplates that compensable injuries under the Act include aggravation injuries.’ ” Liveringhouse, 970 A.2d at 515, (quoting City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Williams), 578 Pa. 207, 220, 851 A.2d 838, 846 (2004)). This implies that Dr. Molter did not know that a claimant may be entitled to benefits for an aggravation of a pre-existing work injury. In reading Dr. Molter’s testimony as a whole, one can readily see that Dr. Molter was trying to explain, albeit in an inartful manner, that there is a difference between the cause of a work injury, versus an aggravation of a pre-existing work injury. Dr. Molter did not opine that a claimant could not receive benefits if she had proven an aggravation of a pre-existing work injury.1
Further, I disagree with the majority’s statement that “Dr. Molter purported to *517offer a legal determination as to the com-pensability of Claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome.” Liveringhouse, 970 A.2d at 515. Dr. Molter simply responded to those questions asked of him by Claimant’s counsel during cross-examination.2 In my opinion, Dr. Molter was not making a legal determination as to the compensability of a work-related injury but was trying to answer all questions to the best of his ability, even those questions that had a legal tone.
Notwithstanding my disagreement with the majority’s characterization of Dr. Molter’s testimony, I agree with the outcome reached by the majority.

. On cross-examination, Dr. Molter responded:
Q. You state in your report that this is not Work Comp related. What is your definition? How did you come up with that opinion that it’s not Work Comp related? A. Her symptoms that presented on her exam were consistent with the mechanism of injury that she had doing the specific job that she did.
Q. Okay. Let me try that again. In order to receive benefits, as far as you know, for Workers’ Compensation, what is the definition of an injury? Let me just help you. Is it caused by what you're doing on the day that you complain about the injury? Is that the definition as far as you know?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you weren’t aware or aren’t aware that you can have an aggravation of a pre-existing —?
A. You can have exacerbations.
Q. And that would be the same as an injury for Workers’ Compensation purposes; is that correct?
A. Well, to a certain extent, yes, except that it's not the same thing. An exacerbation is not the cause of something. It’s something that already exists. I do treat people for exacerbations of things, so I am aware of that being the cause.
Q. But you said it’s not the same thing?
A. No, I said there are two different things. It’s one thing to cause it, it's one thing to cause the exacerbation of it.
Q. All right. But either, or both of those, could be an injuiy that Workers’ Compensation would be responsible for?
*517A. I think there's a fine line when you’re saying injury.
(Molter Dep. at 38-39.)

. Claimant’s attorney asked Dr. Molter his opinion regarding legal matters, such as what the definition of an injury is under the Workers’ Compensation Law and the legal difference between a work injury and an aggravation of a work injury. (Molter Dep. at 38-39.) Claimant's attorney also asked Dr. Molter, "[is it y]our impression [that] Workers’ Compensation was not going to pay for carpal tunnel?” to which Dr. Molter answered, ”[c]orrect.” (Molter Dep. at 39.) Dr. Molter then agreed with Claimant’s counsel that "[p]art of the reason” he was under the impression that Workers' Compensation was not paying for Claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome was based on the assertions made by Nurse Harmon. (Molter Dep. at 39.) However, Dr. Molter further explained that, when he sent the bills to the insurance company, he also listed a bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a diagnosis and that ”[w]hether they pay for it or not is not up to me.” (Molter Dep. at 40.)