Opinion
No. 1134 C.D. 2014
01-06-2015
James T. Jowers, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (United Parcel Service), Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER
In this pro se petition for review from the denial of benefits for a knee injury, James T. Jowers challenges the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ's) findings of fact. Jowers asserts that the findings are against the weight of the medical evidence and based, in part, on equivocal testimony from the eye witness to his fall. Following review of the record, we agree with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), which ruled that the weight of the conflicting medical testimony cannot be reassessed on appeal and the challenged testimony is not equivocal. Thus, we affirm.
Jowers, a driver for United Parcel Service (UPS), sustained an injury during a package delivery on March 10, 2011. Jowers asserts that he fell and "sort of did a split" with both knees hitting the ground. In a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable, UPS accepted liability for a temporary disability due to a right groin injury for the period up to March 29, 2011, when Jowers returned to regular full-time work. UPS issued a Notice Stopping Temporary Compensation. Several months later, Jowers filed petitions seeking review of benefits and asserting a claim for injury to his left knee that he maintains occurred in the March 10 fall.
In the months preceding Jowers's claim, he received treatment for both his knees. After his return to work in March, Jowers again stopped working in late May, when his primary care doctor saw him for pain in his right knee and directed a consult with an orthopedic surgeon. Jowers saw the surgeon, Dr. Lesh, on June 1, 2011, and underwent arthroscopy on the right knee on June 23. He recovered and does not base his current claim on injury to the right knee. Subsequently, Jowers presented to Dr. Lesh on July 19, 2011, with complaints of left knee pain and symptoms consistent with a possible meniscus tear. Lesh performed arthroscopy on the left knee and removed part of a torn meniscus on July 28.
In support of his claim, Jowers testified on his own behalf regarding his fall and submitted Dr. Lesh's deposition testimony. Jowers explained that he fell as he approached the front door to make the delivery because he was startled when an entry light was turned on and a dog emerged as the door opened. Jowers explained that both his knees hit the ground and he felt he had injured his left knee and right groin. He reported that he was seen by Dr. Zgurszynskito to whom UPS referred him the following day. Dr. Lesh stated that while the left knee showed no signs of swelling, instability or limited range of motion on June 1 (nearly three months after the fall) and the symptoms leading to arthroscopy manifested in July (nearly four months after the fall), the meniscal tear in the left knee was attributable to the fall in March. In defense, UPS submitted the testimony of the property owner, Dorothy Coley, who took delivery of the package in March. She could not confirm that Jowers actually hit the ground. She stated that Jowers reported to her and appeared to her to be fine as he walked back to his truck. UPS also submitted the deposition of Dr. Seel, an orthopedic surgeon who performed an independent examination. Dr. Seel opined that in light of the lack of documentation in the records of the physician that saw Jowers the day after the fall of left knee symptoms indicative of meniscus tear, the fall at most resulted in a non-disabling left knee strain.
Faced with conflicting medical evidence as to whether the left knee meniscal tear diagnosed in July was caused by the March fall, the WCJ found credible and more persuasive the testimony of Dr. Seel. Based on this testimony, the WCJ found that the torn meniscus of the left knee that manifested months after the fall was not causally attributable to the fall. The WCAB did not err in refusing to disturb the WCJ's finding. The standard of review on appeal does not permit the WCAB or this court to reassess which evidence is more persuasive; this determination is only for the WCJ as the factfinder. See Bedford Somerset MHMR v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Turner), 51 A.3d 267, 272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Absent a finding that the fall caused the meniscal tear, Jowers cannot prevail on his claim. We discern no equivocation in Ms. Coley's testimony, and in any event, given that there is no dispute Jowers did fall while working, it is of no moment that Coley did not recall seeing the fall or that she and Jowers disagreed as to whether Coley's dog had come outside.
In her decision, the WCJ summarized the conflicting evidence and stated her reasons for finding Dr. Seel's testimony more persuasive. She explained that Dr. Lesh did not review the medical records documenting the examination of Jowers the day following the fall, while Dr. Seel testified that he had reviewed these records. Thus, the decision comports with the "reasoned decision" requirements of Section 422(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 834. --------
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2015, the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge