From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romanski v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 9, 1978
381 A.2d 508 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1978)

Opinion

Argued December 9, 1977

January 9, 1978.

Workmen's compensation — Petition to terminate agreement — Burden of proof — Unequivocal medical testimony — Credibility — Evidentiary weight.

1. The burden is upon an employer seeking to terminate a workmen's compensation agreement to prove that the disability of the employe has ceased. [274-5]

2. In a workmen's compensation case medical opinion testimony must be unequivocal and not based on mere possibilities, but an unequivocal and unqualified opinion of a medical witness is not rendered inadmissible or of no weight because all of the underlying evidence did not point consistently to the conclusion reached by the witness. [275-6]

3. In a workmen's compensation case where the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board took no additional evidence, determinations of credibility and evidentiary weight are for the referee and are binding upon the reviewing court. [276]

Argued December 9, 1977, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., ROGERS and DiSALLE, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 1960 C.D. 1976, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Richard J. Romanski v. Consolidated Molded Products, No. A-71663.

Petition with Department of Labor and Industry to terminate workmen's compensation agreement. Petition granted. Employe appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Decision affirmed. Employe filed petition for review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Charles F. Wilson, for petitioner.

John C. Mascelli, with him Joseph A. Murphy, John R. Lenahan, Jr., Lenahan, Dempsey Murphy, and James N. Diefenderfer, for respondents.


This case is before us upon a petition for review of an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board which affirmed a referee's decision granting a petition to terminate disability benefits to Richard J. Romanski (Petitioner).

Petitioner was employed as a master mechanic by Consolidated Molded Products (Consolidated). On August 28, 1975, Petitioner was struck on the head by a thirty pound hydraulic jack which fell a distance of approximately eight to twelve feet. From August 28, 1975 to December 4, 1975, Petitioner received compensation benefits for the resultant injury and disability. On December 15, 1975, the employer and its insurer filed a petition to terminate alleging that Petitioner's disability had ceased as of November 28, 1975. After a hearing, the petition to terminate was granted.

The sole issue before us is whether the medical testimony offered by the employer is substantial evidence so as to support the decision of the compensation authorities.

Our scope of review in Workmen's Compensation cases is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law committed, or if any finding of fact necessary to support the adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Ira Berger and Sons, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 368 A.2d 282, 283 (1977). Petitioner questions only the adequacy of the employer's medical evidence.

In proceedings to terminate compensation benefits the employer has the burden of proving that the claimant's disability has ceased. Consolidated produced the testimony of Dr. George Shibley, Petitioner's treating physician, in order to meet that burden. It was Dr. Shibley's opinion, based upon tests conducted by himself and those conducted by a neurosurgeon, that Petitioner's disability had completely ceased as of November 28, 1975.

Patterson v. Lenart, 9 Pa. Commw. 116, 305 A.2d 778 (1973).

Petitioner produced no medical testimony in rebuttal. He did testify on his own behalf that he continued to experience symptoms, such as weakness, headache, nausea and vertigo.

Petitioner points to the fact that Dr. Shibley had relied in part upon Petitioner's subjective complaints in reaching the conclusion that he was disabled from August 28 to November 28. Adding this to Shibley's admission on cross-examination that the symptoms complained of could legitimately exist despite the failure of objective testing to reveal any physiological basis for them, Petitioner asserts that Shibley's testimony is so inconsistent and equivocal that it cannot support the referee's finding that Petitioner's disability had ceased as of November 28.

While it is true that the courts have required medical opinion testimony in workmen's compensation cases to be unequivocal and not based on mere possibilities, there is no requirement that all of the underlying medical evidence point consistently and unerringly toward the conclusion reached by the witness or that it be the only conclusion possible. In the present case, Dr. Shibley considered the results of the objective tests and Petitioner's subjective complaints. He could have concluded that Petitioner was still disabled after November 28, but he did not. In his professional medical opinion, stated without equivocation, the Petitioner had recovered from his injury and was able to return to work. At no point did Dr. Shibley qualify or compromise that opinion.

See Kepler Homes v. Hand, 27 Pa. Commw. 291, 366 A.2d 969 (1976); Smith v. Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Co., 194 Pa. Super. 263, 166 A.2d 299 (1961).

See Czanker v. Skytop Lodge, Inc., 13 Pa. Commw. 220, 308 A.2d 911 (1973).

See Fox v. American News Co., 190 Pa. Super. 74, 151 A.2d 670 (1959).

Where, as here, the Board took no additional evidence, questions of weight and credibility of the evidence are for the referee and are binding on this Court. Our review of the record discloses that the referee's findings are supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Philco Ford Corp., 27 Pa. Commw. 298, 366 A.2d 620 (1976).

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 1978, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board at Docket No. A-71663 is hereby affirmed.


Summaries of

Romanski v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 9, 1978
381 A.2d 508 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1978)
Case details for

Romanski v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:Richard J. Romanski, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Workmen's…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 9, 1978

Citations

381 A.2d 508 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1978)
381 A.2d 508

Citing Cases

Walther v. Commonwealth

The employer, of course, has the burden of proving that the claimant's disability has ceased. Romanski v.…

Sellecchia v. W.C.A.B. et al

In a workmen's compensation case, medical opinion testimony regarding causation must be unequivocal and not…