Opinion
No. 754 C.D. 2012
10-26-2012
Joseph Wrecsics, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (National Carriers, Inc.), Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLIGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
Joseph Wrecsics (Claimant) petitions for review of the March 29, 2012, order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) that affirmed the decision of a workers' compensation judge (WCJ) denying and dismissing Claimant's claim petition. We affirm.
On February 24, 2010, Claimant filed a claim petition alleging that he sustained an injury on December 12, 2009, to his right middle finger, left ankle, back, right hand, and pelvis and contusions to "multiple body parts" when he slipped and fell in the course and scope of his employment with National Carriers, Inc. (Employer). Employer filed a notice of compensation denial on the grounds that Claimant did not suffer a work-related injury and/or that any injury sustained was not in the course and scope of his employment. Employer also filed an answer denying the material allegations in the claim petition.
At the hearing before the WCJ, Claimant testified and submitted the testimony of a fact witness and two medical experts in support of his claim petition. In opposition, Employer submitted the testimony from two fact witnesses and a medical expert. Ultimately, the WCJ did not find Claimant's testimony credible and specifically rejected Claimant's testimony regarding the fall and the extent of his alleged disability. (WCJ's Findings of Fact, No. 11.) Having found Claimant not credible, the WCJ likewise rejected the opinions of the medical experts regarding the existence of any work-related injury. (WCJ's Findings of Fact, No. 18.) The WCJ explained that Claimant's medical experts did not persuasively explain how the mechanism of the alleged slip and fall aggravated Claimant's significant preexisting conditions. (Id.) The WCJ concluded that Claimant failed to prove that he sustained a work-related injury. (WCJ's Conclusions of Law, No. 2.) By decision dated December 7, 2010, the WCJ denied and dismissed Claimant's claim petition. Claimant filed an appeal with the WCAB, which affirmed. Claimant's petition for review to this court followed.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704.
On appeal, Claimant argues that the WCJ failed to issue a reasoned decision supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
Section 422(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act (Act), provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]ll parties to an adjudicatory proceeding are entitled to a reasoned decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a whole which clearly and concisely states and explains the rationale for the decisions so that all can determine why and how a particular result was reached," and that "[t]he adjudication shall provide the basis for meaningful appellate review." Section 422(a) of the Act requires a WCJ to set forth the rationale for the decision by specifying the evidence relied upon and reasons for accepting it. Daniels v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 574 Pa. 61, 67, 828 A.2d 1043, 1047 (2003). When presented with conflicting evidence, the WCJ must adequately explain the reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent evidence. Id. at 68, 828 A.2d at 1047. The WCJ may not reject uncontroverted evidence without reason or for an irrational reason, but must identify such evidence and explain adequately the reasons for its rejection. Id.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §834. --------
For witnesses testifying before the WCJ, it is appropriate for the WCJ to base his or her determination upon the demeanor of the witnesses. Id. at 77, 828 A.2d at 1052-1053. Thus, a mere conclusion as to which witnesses were credible is sufficient. Id., 828 A.2d at 1053. When witnesses testify only by deposition, the WCJ must articulate the actual objective basis for the credibility determination. Id at 78, 828 A.2d at 1053.
Here, Claimant testified before the WCJ and was the only witness to the alleged injury. The WCJ, who personally observed Claimant's demeanor, rejected Claimant's testimony because it lacked credibility. In addition to the WCJ's observations, the WCJ also articulated an actual, objective basis for rejecting Claimant's testimony. The WCJ explained that: (1) neither Claimant nor his girlfriend went into the truck stop to report the slip and fall after it occurred; (2) Claimant testified that his right middle finger impacted the ground and he felt immediate swelling in his ankle but waited twenty-four hours before seeking medical attention; (3) medical records show that Claimant had no bruising in the back, no redness or abrasion of the finger, and only mild tenderness and swelling of the ankle; (4) Claimant testified that he has had such intense pain that he has trouble taking care of himself but admitted that he was able to climb into the cab of the truck, start the truck, and move it two weeks after the alleged work incident; and (5) records showed that Claimant submitted an incorrect trip log, which Claimant did not rebut. The WCJ fully summarized the evidence and set forth her reasons for her credibility determinations. We, therefore, conclude that the WCJ's decision was reasoned.
Claimant also contends that the WCJ capriciously disregarded Claimant's evidence. We disagree.
"[R]eview for capricious disregard of material, competent evidence is an appropriate component of appellate consideration in every case in which such question is properly brought before the court." Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Marlowe), 571 Pa. 189, 203, 812 A.2d 478, 487 (2002). Capricious disregard of evidence is a willful or deliberate disregard of competent evidence, which one of ordinary intelligence could not possibly have avoided in reaching a result. Id. at 203 n.12, 812 A.2d at 487 n.12. Where substantial evidence supports an agency's findings, and the findings in turn support the conclusions, it should remain a rare instance where an appellate court disturbs an adjudication based on capricious disregard. Id. at 203 n.14, 812 A.2d at 487 n.14.
Here, the WCJ did not disregard or ignore Claimant's testimony. Rather, the WCJ fully considered Claimant's testimony, summarized it, and ultimately rejected it on credibility grounds. Although Claimant's testimony with regard to the incident was unrebutted by Employer, the WCJ did not believe Claimant and explained her reasons for rejecting Claimant's testimony. We, therefore, conclude that the WCJ did not capriciously disregard the testimony of Claimant.
Claimant also argues that the WCJ erred by admitting certain evidence, which he claims was submitted only to blacken his character. Specifically, Claimant challenges the submission of evidence relating to an incorrect trip log and a forensic report suggesting that a truck fire, which occurred two weeks after the date of the alleged injury, was suspicious. When the evidence was presented at the hearing, Claimant objected but only on the grounds of hearsay and relevancy, which the WCJ overruled. (N.T., 7/29/10, at 6-7, 56.) Claimant did not assert that the evidence was prejudicial. As a result, the issue is waived. Moreover, we note that the rules of evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings. See Section 422(a) of the Act, 77 P.S. §834. The evidence regarding the trip log and truck fire related to Claimant's employment and was offered to contradict Claimant's testimony.
Next, Claimant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that a work-related fall did not occur where Employer conceded that an injury occurred in the course and scope of his employment when its medical expert testified that Claimant sustained at least some injury from his fall. We disagree.
In a claim petition, the claimant bears the burden of proving all of the elements necessary to establish entitlement to benefits under the Act. Inglis House v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135, 141, 634 A.2d 592, 595 (1993). Claimant must prove that his injury arose in the course of employment and was related thereto. Krawchuk v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 497 Pa. 115, 120, 439 A.2d 627, 630 (1981).
Here, Claimant testified that he sustained injuries following a slip and fall on December 12, 2009, in the course and scope of his employment. The WCJ did not believe Claimant. No other witnesses corroborated the slip and fall. Although Claimant's witness was in the vicinity when the injury occurred, she did not witness the fall. Claimant asserts that Employer's medical witness, John Petolillo, D.O., corroborates Claimant's testimony. Dr. Petolillo took a history from Claimant regarding the alleged work incident and based his medical diagnosis on the assumption that Claimant had fallen. (N.T., 9/15/10, at 12.) Dr. Petolillo based his opinion on causation entirely upon the history provided to him by Claimant, which the WCJ rejected. If the WCJ rejects the relied-upon information, then expert medical testimony premised upon the expert's assumption of the truthfulness of the information provided is not competent. See Sewell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 772 A.2d 93, 98 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). Moreover, acceptance of a history of an injury by an employer's medical expert for purposes of rendering a medical diagnosis does not constitute an admission or concession by the employer that the injury was work-related. Ultimately, Claimant, not Employer, had the burden to prove that Claimant sustained a work-related injury. The record lacks competent evidence supporting Claimant's claim petition because the WCJ discredited Claimant's testimony and rejected the existence of any work-related injury.
Last, Claimant contends that this court should reverse and/or vacate and remand the matter to a different WCJ, or direct the WCJ to consider a motion for recusal, because she has been tainted by the admission of prejudicial evidence blackening Claimant's character. We disagree.
First, we find no error on the part of the WCJ to warrant a remand. Second, Claimant waived the issue by failing to file a motion for recusal with the WCJ. Third, even if the issue were not waived, Claimant has failed to demonstrate any bias, prejudice, or unfairness by the WCJ. Rather, it appears that Claimant seeks recusal because he is displeased with the result. "'A mere adverse ruling, without more, does not demonstrate the bias required for a recusal to be granted.'" Dow v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Household Finance Company), 768 A.2d 1221, 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (quoting Commonwealth v. Miller, 541 Pa. 531, 554, 664 A.2d 1310, 1321 (1995)).
Accordingly, the order of the WCAB is affirmed.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of October, 2012, the March 29, 2012, order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board is affirmed.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge