Opinion
No. 2237 C.D. 2011
06-26-2012
Comcast Corporation, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Smith), Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
Comcast Corporation (Employer) petitions for review of the November 3, 2011, order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the decision of a workers' compensation judge (WCJ) denying Employer's termination petition. We affirm.
Mary Lou Smith (Claimant) worked for Employer as a service technician. Claimant's job duties included installation of cable from the main line into a customer's home and required the use of hand tools, shovels, and ladders. On July 1, 2008, Claimant sustained an injury to her right knee when her foot slipped off a shovel as she was digging a trench for an underground cable and her knee twisted sideways. Although Claimant immediately experienced pain and discomfort in her right knee, she continued to work and completed all of her duties that day. The next day, Claimant's knee was swollen and sore, but she did not miss work. In fact, Claimant has performed her regular job without any limitation since the date of the incident. (Finding of Fact No. 1.)
Claimant had a previous injury to her right knee and underwent arthroscopic surgery in 2006. Following surgery and physical therapy, Claimant was released to return to full duty. Thereafter, Claimant experienced occasional stiffness and pain in her right knee, depending on her activities. Claimant noted that, after the July 1, 2008, incident, the pain and discomfort became more frequent and she began experiencing sharp pain and numbness from her knee to her ankle. Id. On July 16, 2008, Claimant sought treatment from John F. Steele, M.D., a panel physician, who ordered diagnostic studies and recommended conservative treatment. Id.
On July 23, 2008, Employer issued a medical-only notice of compensation payable describing Claimant's injury as right knee and right, lower leg strains. (R.R. at 125a.) On March 3, 2009, Claimant underwent an independent medical examination (IME) by Thomas D. Kramer, M.D. Dr. Kramer issued an IME report that same day concluding that Claimant had fully recovered from her July 1, 2008, work injury and that she required no further medical or surgical treatment in relation to this injury. (Finding of Fact No. 2.) Dr. Kramer also issued an affidavit of full recovery. Id.
Upon receipt of this report and affidavit, Employer filed a petition to terminate Claimant's compensation benefits alleging that she was fully recovered. (R.R. at 112a.) Claimant filed an answer denying this allegation, and the case proceeded with hearings before the WCJ. Id. Employer presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Kramer. Dr. Kramer noted that he was board-certified in orthopedic surgery and that his IME of Claimant on March 3, 2009, included a physical examination and a review of Claimant's medical records and diagnostic studies. Dr. Kramer indicated that a pre-injury MRI revealed a degenerative condition in Claimant's right knee, which continued to be seen in her post-injury diagnostic studies. Dr. Kramer did not believe that the July 1, 2008, incident aggravated Claimant's degenerative condition. (Finding of Fact No. 2.)
Dr. Kramer noted that Claimant's medical records revealed that she continued to have ongoing complaints of right knee pain after her 2006 surgery. Dr. Kramer opined that Claimant had fully recovered from her July 1, 2008, work injury, that Claimant did not require any work restrictions, and that any ongoing complaints of pain were related to her pre-existing degenerative condition. Dr. Kramer further opined that the progression of this degenerative condition will ultimately require Claimant to undergo knee replacement surgery. On cross-examination, Dr. Kramer testified that if Claimant did not have any significant complaints of pain prior to July 1, 2008, he would have believed that the work incident aggravated her underlying degenerative condition. Id.
Claimant testified about her work injury and course of treatment, her prior knee injury and 2006 surgery, and her ongoing complaints of pain and numbness in her right knee and leg. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) Claimant acknowledged that she had problems with her right knee following her 2006 surgery, and she testified that she suffered from increased pain and numbness from her knee down to her ankle ever since the July 1, 2008, incident. Id. Claimant also indicated that her condition had not returned to her post-surgery baseline. Id.
Claimant also presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Steele, who is board-certified in orthopedic surgery. Dr. Steele testified that Claimant suffered from pre-existing arthritis in her right knee and that this condition was aggravated as a result of the July 1, 2008, incident at work. In fact, Dr. Steele described the July 1, 2008, work incident as the straw that broke the camel's back, and he believed that as a result of the work injury, she will ultimately require a total knee replacement. Dr. Steele stated that, as of March 2, 2010, the date of his deposition, he continues to see Claimant and that her knee pain persists. (Finding of Fact No. 3.)
Citing Claimant's continuing increased symptoms following the work injury, Dr. Steele opined that Claimant was not fully recovered. Dr. Steele noted that Claimant's medical records referenced occasional knee pain following her 2006 surgery and before the work injury, but he described this reference as not very significant. Dr. Steele explained that, given Claimant's heavy-labor type of job and pre-existing arthritis, occasional knee pain would not be unusual. Id.
On cross-examination, Dr. Steele acknowledged that Claimant's knee was no longer swollen at the time of her second visit on July 23, 2008, approximately three weeks after the work injury. Dr. Steele also acknowledged that Claimant had bone to bone contact in her right knee prior to July 1, 2008, which can result in knee pain. Dr. Steele agreed that during a September 12, 2009, visit, Claimant complained more of stiffness than pain in her knee and that stiffness is a common complaint with osteoarthritis. Id.
The WCJ accepted the testimony of Claimant as credible and accepted the testimony of Dr. Steele as more credible and persuasive than the testimony of Dr. Kramer. (Finding of Fact No. 7.) Based upon these credibility determinations, the WCJ concluded that Employer had not met its burden of proving that Claimant had fully recovered from her work injury. Hence, the WCJ denied Employer's termination petition. Employer appealed to the Board, challenging the competency of Dr. Steele's testimony. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision.
On appeal to this Court, Employer argues that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ's decision, because the WCJ's finding that Claimant was not fully recovered from her work injury was not supported by competent evidence. More specifically, Employer argues that Dr. Steele's opinions were based upon an inaccurate understanding of Claimant's pre-injury knee condition and, therefore, his testimony was not competent evidence to support the WCJ's finding. We disagree.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated. Meadow Lakes Apartments v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Spencer), 894 A.2d 214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). --------
Initially, we note that an employer seeking to terminate workers' compensation benefits bears the burden of proving either that the employee's disability has ceased or that any current disability arises from a cause unrelated to the employee's work injury. Campbell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Antietam Valley Animal Hospital), 705 A.2d 503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). A termination of workers' compensation benefits is proper where the claimant's work injury consists of an aggravation of a pre-existing, non-work-related condition and the claimant has returned to baseline. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Baxter), 550 Pa. 658, 708 A.2d 801 (1998). In such a situation, the claimant is found to have recovered from his work injury. Id.
A physician's testimony is deemed to be incompetent as a matter of law where it is based upon false or inaccurate information. Newcomer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Ward Trucking Corp.), 547 Pa. 639, 692 A.2d 1062 (1997) (holding that the testimony of the claimant's doctor was incompetent because the claimant had provided his doctor with a description of a prior work injury that was patently different from the description set forth in his medical records); Chik-Fil-A v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Mollick), 792 A.2d 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (holding that a physician's testimony regarding the cause of the claimant's injuries was incompetent as a matter of law because the physician's testimony was based on an incomplete medical history). However, where there is no evidence that a claimant provided a false or inaccurate medical history and the physician does not recant his original opinion, the physician's opinion is competent and can be considered and relied upon by the WCJ. Calex, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Vantaggi), 968 A.2d 822 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 686, 982 A.2d 1229 (2009) (holding that the grant of a claim petition was proper where, despite the lack of any notation of neck problems in the medical records immediately following a work accident, the claimant credibly testified that he reported such problems to the employer's panel physician and where the claimant's physician credibly opined that the work accident inflamed the claimant's degenerative neck condition and never recanted this opinion).
In the present case, Employer argues that Claimant's own testimony illustrates that her knee complaints were identical both before and after her work injury. Employer also argues that Dr. Steele based his opinion that Claimant had aggravated her pre-existing knee condition and had not fully recovered from the work injury on the erroneous belief that Claimant did not have knee pain prior to the work injury. However, a review of the testimony of Claimant and Dr. Steele, which was credited by the WCJ, does not support these assertions.
Claimant testified that she suffered from increased pain and numbness from her knee down to her ankle ever since the July 1, 2008, work incident. (R.R. at 21a.) Claimant also testified that her condition had not returned to her pre-injury baseline. Id. On cross-examination, Claimant described her knee pain following the July 1, 2008, work incident as more constant than before, and she described her overall discomfort as never feeling "quite the same as it did after the surgery in 2006." (R.R. at 30a-31a.) Thus, Claimant's testimony reflects a change in the symptoms following the July 1, 2008, work injury.
Moreover, contrary to Employer's assertions, Dr. Steele testified that he was aware of Claimant's pre-existing arthritic condition in her right knee and her 2006 surgery, and he specifically acknowledged that Claimant had occasional complaints of occasional knee pain prior to the work injury. (R.R. at 71a-73a.) However, he believed that such pain was not unusual for a person engaged in "heavy-labor-type work," and he emphasized that Claimant continues to have increased symptoms and pain since the July 1, 2008, work injury. (R.R. at 74a-75a.) On cross-examination, Dr. Steele reiterated that the July 1, 2008, work incident aggravated Claimant's pre-existing arthritis in her right knee and resulted in significant, increased symptoms, and he specifically denied that Claimant's current symptoms were similar to her pre-injury symptoms. (R.R. at 85a-87a, 95a.) We conclude that the credible testimony discussed above reflects that Dr. Steele had an accurate understanding of Claimant's pre-injury knee condition. Therefore, Dr. Steele's testimony was not incompetent, the WCJ did not err in relying on the same, and the Board did not err in affirming the WCJ's decision.
Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2012, the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, dated November 3, 2011, is hereby affirmed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge