Opinion
No. 1708 C.D. 2011
08-14-2012
Derek Albertson, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Giant 284), Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON
Derek Albertson (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board), dated August 11, 2011. The Board affirmed the decision of the Worker's Compensation Judge (WCJ) and denied Claimant's claim petition, review petition, and reinstatement petition pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (the Act). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041, 2501-2708.
Claimant worked as a produce clerk for Giant Food Stores, Inc. (Employer). Claimant suffered a work-related injury to his neck on May 23, 2007, while attempting to lift a tub of corn. Employer accepted responsibility for the injury and began paying medical benefits to Claimant pursuant to the Notice of Compensation Payable issued on June 20, 2007. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 1a.) On April 10, 2008, Employer filed a petition to terminate compensation benefits, claiming that Claimant had made a full recovery as of March 27, 2008. (Id. at 15a.) Thereafter, Claimant filed a review petition, claim petition, and a reinstatement petition. In the review petition, Claimant alleged an incorrect description of his injury. (Id. at 9a-10a.) Specifically, Claimant alleged that the description of his injury should include the following: cervical spine, including but not limited to sprain and strain, bilateral occipital neuralgia; ventral cord impingement at C4-5, 5-6, and 6-7; aggravation of generative condition at C2-C-3, C3-C-4, C4-5, and C6-7 levels; and cervogenic headache. (Id. at 10a.) In the claim petition, Claimant alleged that the above listed injuries caused him to cease employment with Whole Foods Market, Inc. (Whole Foods), his current employer. (Id. at 2a.) Finally, in the reinstatement petition, Claimant alleged that his injury caused a decrease in earning power as of February 27, 2008. (Id. at 7a.)
Employer sought to join Claimant's subsequent employer, Whole Foods, pursuant to a petition for joinder of additional defendant. (R.R. at 17a.) Additionally, Claimant filed a claim petition against Whole Foods. However, Claimant settled the claim involving Whole Foods through a compromise and release agreement approved by the WCJ on April 15, 2009. (R.R. at 77a.)
Before the WCJ, Claimant described his May 23, 2007 injury, while still employed by Employer, and testified that when he lifted the tub of corn weighing approximately 60 to 90 pounds, he felt a "rip or a tear" in his neck. (Id.at 21a.) Following the injury, Claimant stated that he informed his manager of the incident, filled out an accident report, but continued working throughout the day. (Id.) The following day, Claimant received medical treatment for his injury at Pottstown Hospital. (Id.) Claimant underwent physical therapy treatment, received steroid injections in his neck, and also treated with a chiropractor. (Id. at 21a-22a.) Claimant testified that he continued to have neck pain and headaches throughout his treatment, but he was able to start his new job at Whole Foods on June 1, 2007 without restrictions. (Id. 21a-22a, 77a, 81a.) Claimant indicated that he worked at Whole Foods for approximately six months, but he had to terminate his employment because the pain in his neck from his work-related injury with Employer was "unbearable." (Id.) Claimant has not been employed since he stopped working at Whole Foods on February 27, 2008. (Id. at 26a.) Claimant finally testified that, at the time of the hearing, his next step for pain management was a surgical procedure. (Id. at 23a.)
Two medical experts testified regarding Claimant's injury. Claimant presented the expert testimony of Lewis Sharps, M.D., a board certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Sharps testified that he initially examined Claimant on July 14, 2008. (Id. at 33a.) Dr. Sharps stated that during Claimant's physical examination, Claimant complained of chronic neck pain. (Id.) Dr. Sharps noted a limitation of cervical rotation as well as a moderate para-spinal muscle spasm. (Id.) Based on Dr. Sharps' review of Claimant's medical history as well as his physical examinations, Dr. Sharps concluded that Claimant suffered an injury to his cervical spine, which resulted in a traumatic aggravation or a traumatic causation of C5-6 and C6-7 discogenic disease with a result symptomatic contained disc herniation at C5-6. (Id. at 38a.) Dr. Sharps further testified that this injury directly and causally necessitated surgery, which Dr. Sharps performed on September 3, 2008. (Id.) Dr. Sharps also opined that, as of Claimant's last day of work at Whole Foods, Claimant would not be able to return to work as a produce clerk for Employer or Whole Foods due to his work-related injury. (Id. at 39a.) Finally, Dr. Sharps testified that even if Claimant had a pre-existing cervical disc disease, the May 23, 2007 injury aggravated the disease, making it symptomatic. (Id.)
Robert Keehn, M.D., a board certified orthopedic surgeon, testified on behalf of Employer. Dr. Keehn performed a physical examination of Claimant on March 27, 2008. (Id. at 47a.) During his physical examination, Dr. Keehn noted that Claimant had full motion of his cervical spine in his neck. (Id.) Dr. Keehn testified that while Claimant had tenderness along the upper portion of the skull, he had no tenderness over the paracervical or trapezius muscles, which are the muscles around the neck. (Id.) Based on Dr. Keehn's review of Claimant's medical history and history with regard to the injury, Dr. Keehn opined that Claimant suffered a cervical spine sprain and strain. (Id. at 49a.) However, unlike Dr. Sharps, Dr. Keehn did not find an aggravation of any pre-existing degenerative disease. (Id.) Dr. Keehn opined that Claimant's symptoms were solely the result of a pre-existing degenerative disease. (Id.) Finally, Dr. Keehn testified that Claimant had fully recovered from his work injury and could return to work as of March 23, 2008, when Dr. Keehn examined Claimant and issued a Physician's Affidavit of Recovery. (Id.)
By decision and order dated January 15, 2010, the WCJ denied Claimant's petition to review compensation benefits and petition to reinstate compensation benefits. (WCJ's opinion and order, attached to Claimant's Brief as "Appendix.") The WCJ held that Claimant was not entitled to an amendment of the description of his work injury, because the WCJ found that Claimant sustained only a sprain or strain of his cervical spine as a result of the May 23, 2007 work injury and rejected the additional injuries alleged by Claimant in the nature of an aggravation of a pre-existing condition of his cervical spine or bulging or herniated discs. In so doing, the WCJ credited Dr. Keehn's testimony. The WCJ also credited Dr. Sharps' testimony, but only to the extent that it was consistent with Dr. Keehn's medical opinion. (Id. at A-21.) The WCJ specifically rejected Dr. Sharps' testimony that Claimant's injury caused a traumatic causation or a traumatic aggravation of his discogenetic disease. (Id. at A-22.) Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the WCJ concluded that Claimant was not entitled to an amended description of his work injury, was not entitled to attorney's fees, and, further, that Employer was entitled to termination of Claimant's benefits as of March 27, 2008. (Id. at A-24.)
The WCJ also concluded that due to an unreasonable and excessive delay in paying Claimant's medical bills due to his work-related injury, Claimant was entitled to an assessment of penalties equal to fifty percent (50%) of the repriced amount of medical expenses that Employer failed to pay. This conclusion, however, is not the subject of this appeal, and we will not address it further.
Claimant appealed to the Board, arguing that the WCJ failed to issue a reasoned decision under Section 422(a) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 834, and that the WCJ's finding of fact number 21(c), relating to the credibility of the medical experts, was not supported by substantial evidence. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision and order.
On appeal to this Court, Claimant argues that the Board committed an error of law when it concluded that the WCJ issued a reasoned decision. Specifically, Claimant contends that the WCJ's decision is not reasoned because finding of fact number 21, relating to the WCJ's determination that Dr. Keehn's testimony was more credible than that of Dr. Sharps: (1) disregards uncontradicted testimony of all medical experts that Claimant's injury was suffered in the course of his employment and was not an aggravation of a pre-existing condition; (2) concludes that Claimant's injury was caused by another factor for which there is no evidentiary support; (3) is based on speculation rather than evidence of record; and (4) contains arbitrary and capricious credibility determinations that demonstrate a fundamental misapprehension of the facts. Claimant also argues throughout that finding of fact number 21 is not supported by substantial evidence of record.
This Court's standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. § 704.
Section 422(a) of the Act requires a WCJ to issue a reasoned decision such that it that permits an appellate court to exercise adequate appellate review. Amendeo v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Conagra Foods), 37 A.3d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (citing Dorsey v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Crossing Constr. Co.), 893 A.2d 191 (Pa. Cmlth. 2006)). To satisfy this standard, a WCJ need not discuss every detail in the record. Id. "Rather, Section 422(a) of the Act requires WCJs to issue reasoned decisions so that this Court does not have to 'imagine' the reasons why a WCJ finds that the conflicting testimony of one witness was more credible than the testimony of another witness." Id. (citations omitted). With regard to a WCJ's credibility determinations, this Court has stated as follows:
Although our Supreme Court has held that a WCJ need not explain credibility determinations relating to a witness who testifies before the WCJ, Section 422(a) of the Act requires some explanation of credibility determinations by a WCJ with regard to conflicting deposition testimony in order to enable this Court to review a WCJ's decision. Under Section 422(a) of the Act, a WCJ must articulate the objective rationale underlying his credibility determinations where the testimony of such witnesses is conflicting. A WCJ may satisfy the reasoned decision requirement if he
summarizes the witnesses' testimony 'and adequately explains his credibility determinations.' Clear Channel Broad v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Perry), 938 A.2d 1150, 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).Amendeo, 37 A.2d at 76 (citations omitted).
Claimant's arguments focus on the WCJ's finding of fact number 21, wherein the WCJ found as follows:
This [WCJ] has carefully reviewed the testimony and evidence presented in this matter. Based upon such review, the [WCJ] hereby accepts the testimony and medical opinions of Dr. Keehn as competent, credible, and worthy of belief, for the reasons articulated by him at the time of his deposition. Further, this [WCJ] hereby also accepts the testimony and medical opinions of Dr. Sharps, but only to the extent that they were consistent with the competent and credible testimony of medical opinions of Dr. Keehn. However, this [WCJ] also does hereby specifically reject the testimony and medical opinions of Dr. Sharps that the claimant sustained either the traumatic causation or a traumatic aggravation of his discogenetic disease at the C4-C5 level, the C5-C6 level, and the C6-C7 level of his cervical spine, as a result of his work-related injury of May 23, 2007, as lacking credibility for the following reasons:
a. Dr. Sharps did not have the opportunity to personally see or examine the claimant for the first time until July 14, 2008, which was more than a year after his work-related injury of May 23, 2007, and more than four months after claimant stopped working completely for Whole Foods Market;
b. The MRI studies of the claimant's cervical spine performed shortly after his work-related injury on May 31, 2007, and on June 28, 2007, although the first one was limited by patient motion, revealed only that the claimant had pre-existing degenerative disc disease and degenerative facet joint disease in his cervical spine. In particular, there was no indication
in the reports from either of those studies that the claimant was found to have a bulging disc or a herniated disc at any level of his cervical spine at the times of those studies.
c. The MRI study of the claimant's cervical spine performed on March 6, 2008, resulted in findings particularly at the C6-C7 level of his cervical spine, which were described by the radiologist as being more pronounced than on his prior studies. It is noted that during the period between the claimant's second MRI study on June 28, 2007 and his third MRI study on March 6, 2008, the claimant was not working for the employer in any capacity, but he was working on a full-time basis and performing the duties and responsibilities of a produce clerk for Whole Foods Market. Therefore, this [WCJ] concludes that if, as Dr. Sharps suggests, the claimant sustained an aggravation of the pre-existing condition of his cervical spine as revealed by the findings from his third MRI study, it is much more likely that he sustained that aggravation as a result of his duties and activities at work for Whole Foods Market, and not his work-related injury in the course of his employment with the employer on May 23, 2007.
d. The MRI study of the claimant's cervical spine performed on July 6, 2008, was the first such study that revealed that the claimant had developed a bulging disc at the C4-C5 level and the C5-C6 level of his cervical spine and a herniated disc at the C6-C7 level of the cervical spine. Therefore, since that study was performed more than thirteen months after the claimant's work-related injury of May 23, 2007, this [WCJ] cannot consider the bulging discs and the herniated disc found at the time of that study to have been causally related to his said work-related injury.
e. Based upon a careful review of the claimant's testimony and the medical testimony and evidence presented in this matter, there is no indication that when the claimant stopped working completely on February 25, 2008, he was under the care and
treatment of any doctor or physician for his work-related injury of May 23, 2007, or that he stopped working at that time on the advice of any physician. Indeed, based upon the testimony and evidence currently of record in this matter, the physician who examined the claimant in closest proximity to the date that he stopped working completely for Whole Foods Market was Dr. Keehn. However, at the time of his first examination of claimant on March 27, 2008, Dr. Keehn did not make any positive findings that would indicate that claimant was disabled and not capable of continuing to work as a produce clerk for either the employer or Whole Foods Market.(WCJ's opinion attached to Claimant's Brief at A-22 to A-23 (emphasis added).)
Thus, the WCJ explained that his credibility determinations were based upon: timing of the medical examinations, the June 2007 MRI showing only pre-existing degenerative disc disease and degenerative facet joint disease with no bulging discs, the March 2008 MRI showing more pronounced findings at C6-C7 than in the previous MRI, the July 2008 MRI showing a bulging disc at C6-C7, the opinion of Dr. Keehn that Claimant was not disabled or incapable of continuing to work based on Dr. Keehn's examination of Claimant just one month after he stopped working for Whole Foods, and that there was no indication that when Claimant stopped working for Whole Foods "he was under the care and treatment of any doctor or physician for his work-related injury of May 23, 2007, or that he stopped working at that time on the advice of any physician." (Id.) In addition to those bases, the WCJ also based his credibility determinations on his belief that Dr. Sharps' theory was not plausible. While the reasons that the WCJ proffered for his credibility determinations are the type of reasons that generally would satisfy the requirements for a reasoned decision, Claimant appears to argue that the reasons given are not supported by the record, but rather are based on speculation or a misapprehension of facts, and are contradicted by other evidence of record.
In analyzing Claimant's arguments, we are mindful that the WCJ is the ultimate fact finder in workers' compensation cases, and we are bound by the WCJ's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. General Electric Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Valsamaki), 593 A.2d 921, 924 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 529 Pa. 626, 600 A.2d 541 (1991). It does not matter that there is evidence of record which could support a finding contrary to that made by the WCJ, the only inquiry is whether there is evidence of record which supports the WCJ's finding. Hoffmaster v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Senco Products Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152, 1155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). The WCJ, however, cannot capriciously disregard competent, relevant evidence, and "capricious disregard is found when the fact-finder ignores relevant, competent evidence." Armitage v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Gurtler Chem.), 842 A.2d 516, 519 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
First and foremost, Claimant argues that the WCJ's reasoning that "if, as Dr. Sharps suggests, [C]laimant sustained an aggravation of the pre-existing condition of his cervical spine as revealed by the findings from his third MRI study, it is much more likely that he sustained that aggravation as a result of his duties and activities at work for Whole Foods. . ., and not his work-related injury in the course of his employment with [E]mployer on May 23, 2007," is not supported by substantial evidence of record and is based entirely on speculation. (Id.) We disagree. We stress that the WCJ never made a finding that Claimant's injury occurred as a result of his employment with Whole Foods. To the contrary, the WCJ found that "[o]n May 23, 2007, the [C]laimant, Derek L. Albertson, sustained a work-related injury to his cervical spine in the course of his employment with the employer, Giant Foods Stores, Inc." (WCJ's opinion, attached to Claimant's brief at A-18.) While Claimant suggests that finding of fact 21(c) somehow supports a conclusion that the WCJ found Claimant's injury occurred at Whole Foods, this is simply not the case, and we agree with the Board's interpretation of this statement. The Board noted that the WCJ's statement was not a finding by the WCJ that Claimant's injury resulted from his job at Whole Foods, but, rather, an attempt by the WCJ to explain his rejection of Dr. Sharps' theory. The WCJ's statement is one of his several bases for rejecting Dr. Sharps' theory that Claimant's work-related injury with Employer caused an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. More specifically, the WCJ was explaining that Dr. Sharps' theory that Claimant's work for Employer aggravated his pre-existing degenerative conditions was not plausible, in light of the fact that Claimant's pre-existing degenerative conditions appeared more pronounced subsequent to his employment with Whole Foods, as opposed to his employment with Employer. Furthermore, the MRI studies, at the very least, support the WCJ's skepticism that the work-related injury somehow caused an aggravation of Claimant's pre-existing degenerative disease. Accordingly, because there is no finding that Claimant's injury occurred while employed by Whole Foods, Claimant's argument that this "finding" is not supported by substantial evidence, lacks merit.
Claimant also argues that the WCJ arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded competent evidence in reaching the finding that Claimant suffered an injury at Whole Foods. Because the WCJ did not make such a finding, and, to the contrary, concluded that Claimant's injury occurred with Employer, Claimant's argument lacks merit and we need not address it further.
Claimant also appears to argue that the portion of finding of fact number 21 relating to Claimant's MRI's is not supported by substantial evidence and contradicts the testimony of Dr. Sharps and Dr. Keehn and, therefore, cannot provide a basis for a reasoned decision. Claimant contends that the WCJ essentially found that the MRIs showed a substantial change in Claimant's condition before and after Claimant's work at Whole Foods, and that such a finding is contradicted by the testimony of the medical experts. A review of the finding reveals that the WCJ merely noted the results of the MRIs performed on May 31 and June 28, 2007, and March 6, 2008, and noted that the MRI performed on July 6, 2008
was the first such study that revealed that the claimant had developed a bulging disc at the C4-C5 level and the C5-C6 level of his cervical spine and a herniated disc at the C6-C7 level of the cervical spine. Therefore, since that study was performed more than thirteen months after the claimant's work-related injury of May 23, 2007, this [WCJ] cannot consider the bulging discs and the herniated disc found at the time of that study to have been causally related to his said work-related injury.(WCJ's opinion attached to Claimant's brief at A-23.)
Claimant points to Dr. Sharps' testimony that, in his opinion, the disc disease documented on the first MRI remained "compatible" with the disc disease documented on the third MRI, despite the different radiologic interpretations. (R.R. at 36a.) Dr. Sharps' opinion as to the significance of the MRI reports may be considered by a WCJ when determining the weight to be afforded such evidence, but his testimony does not negate the MRI reports or somehow render them irrelevant, insufficient, or incompetent to support a finding.
Claimant also points to testimony of Dr. Keehn in support of his position, but that testimony does not even address the July 2008 MRI, showing the disc herniation. Dr. Keehn testified, in part, as follows:
Q. Doctor, based upon the history that you obtained from Mr. Albertson, your review of the medical records and diagnostic study reports, as well as your own physical examination of him on March 27, 2008, were you able to form an opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to a diagnosis as it pertains to the work incident of May 23, 2007?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was that diagnosis?
A. My opinion was that he sustained a sprain and strain of his cervical spine, meaning his neck, and I believe that he had underlying and preexisting degenerative disease of the cervical spine.
Q. Doctor, were you able to form an opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to whether or not the degenerative disease of the cervical spine was either caused or aggravated by the work incident of May 23, 2007?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was that opinion?
A. My opinion was that the degenerative disease was preexisting and not aggravated by the accident.
Q. Doctor, you reviewed the MRI films that had been completed as of the date of your first examination; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they would have included the May 31, 2007 MRI of the cervical spine?(R.R. at 49a.) Dr. Keehn's testimony referenced above cannot be interpreted to address whether the July 2008 MRI showed a substantial change in Claimant's condition, and, therefore, it does not contradict the WCJ's finding that the July 2008 MRI was the first MRI to reveal a herniated disc. Moreover, even if the testimony contradicted the MRI findings, such testimony would be a factor for a WCJ to consider when determining the weight to be afforded to the MRI results. Furthermore, Dr. Keehn's testimony cannot be interpreted to contradict the WCJ's finding that "since that study was performed more than thirteen months after the claimant's work-related injury of May 23, 2007, this [WCJ] cannot consider the bulging discs and the herniated disc found at the time of that study to have been causally related to his said work-related injury." (WCJ's opinion attached to Claimant's brief at A-23.) Thus, we must conclude that Claimant's argument is without merit.
A. That's correct.
Q. And the June 28, 2007 MRI of the cervical spine?
A. That's correct.
Q. As well as a March 6th, 2008 MRI of the cervical spine?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, despite the differences in some of those MRI findings based upon patient motion and being performed at some different facilities, were you able to reach an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to whether any of the disc findings on those MRIs were in any way related to the work incident of May of 2007?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was that opinion?
A. My opinion is that these findings are preexisting and were not caused by the sprain that he sustained.
Q. Were the findings on the MRI in any way aggravated by the sprain that he sustained at work in May of 2007?
A. I don't believe so.
We note, however, to the extent that Claimant is concerned that the WCJ utilized this portion of finding of fact number 21 to reach the finding that "if, as Dr. Sharps suggests, [C]laimant sustained an aggravation of the pre-existing condition of his cervical spine as revealed by the findings from his third MRI study, it is much more likely that he sustained that aggravation as a result of his duties and activities at work for Whole Foods..., and not his work-related injury in the course of his employment with [E]mployer on May 23, 2007," we have already concluded that the WCJ did not make a finding that Claimant suffered an injury at Whole Foods. (WCJ's opinion attached to Claimant's brief at A-22.)
It appears that Claimant also may be arguing that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion that Claimant had a pre-existing cervical condition. Dr. Keehn's testimony, summarized above, constitutes substantial evidence to support a finding that Claimant suffered from a non-work-related degenerative cervical disc condition and further that he had fully recovered from his work-related injury, described as a neck sprain or strain, as of March 27, 2008. (R.R. at 49a.) The WCJ chose to find Dr. Keehn's testimony credible, which is well within his discretion. Therefore, substantial evidence exists to support this finding of fact.
Claimant also appears to argue that the WCJ's decision is not reasoned with regard to finding of fact 21(e) because of the WCJ's belief that, at the time Claimant ceased working for Whole Foods, Claimant was not "under the care and treatment of any doctor or physician for his work-related injury of May 23, 2007," and, further, that Claimant did not stop "working at that time on the advice of any physician," is not supported by substantial evidence of record. First of all, we note that Claimant ceased working for Whole Foods in February 2008, and he first saw Dr. Keehn on March 27, 2008, and Dr. Sharps on July 14, 2008. Secondly, we note that Claimant's own testimony failed to establish that he was receiving medical care or following medical advice at the time he terminated his employment with Whole Foods. This portion of finding fact number 21, therefore, was supported by substantial evidence of record, and the WCJ did not err in relying upon that finding when making credibility determinations.
When asked if Claimant received treatment between June 2007 and December 2008, Claimant testified, "I'm sure I did I'm not really sure though." (R.R. at 25a.) --------
Thus, based upon our discussion above, the portion finding of fact number 21 that finds that "if, as Dr. Sharps suggests, [C]laimant sustained an aggravation of the pre-existing condition of his cervical spine as revealed by the findings from his third MRI study, it is much more likely that he sustained that aggravation as a result of his duties and activities at work for Whole Foods. . ., and not his work-related injury in the course of his employment with [E]mployer on May 23, 2007," is not a finding and, therefore, Claimant's argument that it is not supported by substantial evidence lacks merit. The remainder of the challenged portions of finding of fact number 21 are supported by substantial evidence of record and are the type of findings that would normally form the bases of a reasoned decision.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Board.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2012, the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board), dated August 11, 2011, is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge