HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-03271
.
I ' . i
.~
-t.y
.t
f":t "
'1 -
t'"
cr l>oI
on -
~ 0 -
t~ - it
~~
~ t:
~ ~ 6
l.,..~ ~
"
111
"J ~\ 0
Il
. \,.)
"" .,..
;~1
1 "
.
I
II · ,
.
JUANIlA IIALL VS WAR11INS1ER GENEIlAL 1I0SPllAL
SSN 580-66-3631
rAGE 2
Ju I y 27, 1987, (cant nued),
January 20). 1988, (e almant testified),
July 28, 1~88, (cant nuedl I
Octol.ler 61 1988, (Ul~ Claimant Introduced
the depos tlon of William McKenzie),
January 19, 1989, (conti nued),
~UlY 3, 198:.!, (conllnued),
ugus t 7, 1989, (conI I nued),
ebrunry 12 1990, (tile Claimant Introduced
tlW de!)u5 lion of Dr. Snyder and exhlbl t C-3),
JUlY 2:i, 1990, (tile Clalmilnt Introduced the
deposl tlon of Dr. ledaldl ilnd exhlbl ts (-5
and C-6 I
January 7,1991 (tile employer Introduced
the depositIon of Dr. Casey and exhibits D-2
and D - 3) ,
May 2, 1991, (contlnuccl)1
August 16, 1991, (11Ie employer offered the
~S~~rltlon of Nancy Laney tbken on March 26,
January 16, 1992, (contlnuedl,
February 2/1, 1992, (the Claimant testified,
Introduced the deposition of Beatrice Ross,
and exhIbits C-B tllru C-I0l,
May 6, 1992, (continued),
June 29 1992, (tile employer offered the
deposition of Nancy Laney taken on June 11
19921 the Claimant Introduced exhibits c-ii
thru C-15), a I hearings at the State Off ce
Bullcllng, Phi adelpllla, PA
~_Jm:.tfE5-:iES_& dlXlIllllIS
IlEAHING DATESI
JuanIta Hall (testlfylng on January 20, 198B and February 24.
1992 ,
(-1, WIll lam Mckenz Ie (by depusl tlon and exhlbl ts attached
thereto ,
C-2, Dr. Jack Snyder (by cjepos I tI on and exhlb Its (-2 thru (-5
attached theretol,
(-3. Lltlgaflon CostSI
C-4, Dr. El ellleclaldl OJY clcposltlon),
(-5, Litigation costs,
C-61 Records from the enlPloyer I
exh bits C-l thru C-3 attached to the deposition of Dr, Casey,
JU~NllA IlALL VS WAlU11NS1EH GENEHAL 1I0SPIlAL
S8 580-66-3631
PA [ :5
C-7, Beatrice Hoss (by deposl tlon and exhlbl ts A-C attached
thereto) I
C-8, Letters of Clalmont counsel to his cllentl
C-9, Affidavit of Claimant counsel sworn February 24, 19921 c-
Ia, Litigation Involcesl
-exhibits C-l and C-2 attacllcd \0 the cleposltlon of Nancy Laney
taken on June 1 t, 19921
C-IL l.lst of calmant s mecllcatlurll
C- 2, t\uat\on nvolcel
C- 3 Wrl tten reQucst for unreasonable contest and Imposl tlon of
Section 1140 counsel fees by Claimant counsel dated June 291
1992, C-lll, Letters of Claimant counsel dated December 17, 199
and January 9, 19921
C-ls, Fee Statement agreement.
DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES .& EXllI II I 1 S
0-1, Dr. M I cllOe I Casey (by depos I tI on and exh I bit Casey-l
attached thereto.)
0-21 Records subml t ted by tile emp I oyer to the off I ce of
[mp oyment Security,
0-3, Wage statementl
0-11, Nancy Laney (by deposition taken on March 26, 1991 and
exhibits 0-1 thru 0-7 attached thereto),
0-5, Nancy Laney (bY deposition taken on June 11, 1992,)
REFEREl'_S fXllIBIlS
R-l, Preserved Objections of the clalmantl
R-2, Preserved Ob] ect ons of the emp oyer I
HECORD
This matter carnes before tile Referee upon assignment bv the
Bureau of Workers' Compensation on Junc 19, 1987 of a Claim
PetItion flied bY Juanita l1all agalnst her eI11PIO{er, Warmlnster
General 1I0spI tal (he\'e\nafter, "WGI"). The Petl Ion alleged In
lJert\nent part that 1a I suffered an oecupatlona disease under
Sect on 108 of the Act while performing duties for her employer,
pree udlng all employment as of JulY 20, 1984,
J~~NIT^ ItALL VS WAltMlNSlLH GENElIAI. ItOSPI1AL
S 580-66-3631
r E'I
An Answer f II ed by WGH llnd reee I ved by tile Bureau on June
29, 1987 denied all allegat Ions of a compensable work-related
occupational disease.
In iJ letter to 11115 Heferee dated December 17, 1991 and
Introduced as exlllblt C-1'1, counsel for Hall amended tile
Petl lion to jJlOCeed "under tile Workers Compensation Act. . I
,for an 'Inury'. . . as oppose(j to i1 named occupatlona
disease, , ,"
Upon review of all evidence as noted above, tile Referee
offers tile following F ndlngs of Fact. Discussion, Conclusions
of Law, and Order,
fINDINGS OF [ACT
1. In a Claim Petltlon filed on or about June 9,1987, Juanita
lIall alleged experiencing a "respiratory Infectlp,n and
broncllltls" tllru "Inwlatlon of fumes and substances' willie
employed for WGH as a Ilousekeeper.
2. Tile Claimant's work duties Included cleaning Ilospltal
patient and operating rooms as wel I as tile nurses' station at an
average weekly wage of ~278,~1.
3, In performing Iler dutle$, lIall used IndividuallY and mixed
numerous cleaning fluids Including Ajax, Clorox, aMnonla bleacll,
and Wlndex,
4, In 1983, Ua II began exper 1 enc 1 ng Ileadaclles, d I zz 1 ness, and
d fflculty breatllng willie performing work duties.
5. Upon Illlnedlately complainIng of tile affects of tile cleaning
chemicals to Iler boss. Jolln. I all was directed to seek treatment
In tile emergency room of WGH,
6, On July 20, 198~, Uall ceased all employment.
7. In support of her Petition, Uall testified, Introdv~ed
exlllbl ts, and tile deposl Ilons of Dr I Jack Snyder, Dr. Ellen
Tedaldl, William Mckenzie, and Beatrice Ross.
JU~NITA IlAll VS
SSN 580-66-3631
P~GE 5
WARMINSH:I\ GrNEI\Al. 1l0SPll At
8. Dr. Snyder, a PIlYSlc/an wltll expel tlse In toxl~OIOgy and
oCCU\latlonal envlronmcnto meeJ!c\ne, evaluated tile t almant In
or 8>OUt Deccmher, 1987. In a Plyslcal examination r. Snyder
Identified wheezing and hreathlny (llfflcultles. A review of
mater a safety datu r,heets. (hereinafter, "MSDS") of cleaning
flUidS useeJ by Hall at WbH Indl! ated exposure to ullmon 8.
b eaclles, actdlc detelgents, etlHlllOlamlnes, Gnd pyretllrlns. In
acid I t Ion. medical records suggested Hall lwd a "predl Sll051 t Ion
to tile deve I opm(!n t of as t hma upon eXI)(J~)IH e to a<,Jcnts sue, as she
was expused to." (N.l" P. Ill). Offerlny an opinion "exposure
to one or more cllemlcal!. eJullny l1el l~l\lI)loyment. at Walll1lnstel
General Hospital caused an agyravatlon of Ilel astllmatlc
condit on "(N.T" p.39), \Jr, Snyder concluded Hull "can't return
to any work environment tl1at Involves exposure to respiratory
Irritants or a:;tllmo rnovoklny agents" IN.l., P. 70),
9. Dr. Ellen ledaldl. a pllyslclan certlf\(~eJ by tile Amerl~an
Board of Internal Medicine, 11iIS treated Hall sInce August 10,
t988, The Claimant relatc(l a history of astluna from 1984 and
ncrcosc:d cplsodes of SIHJrtncss of bleath. In an Initial
PI1Yslcal examination. Dr. Tedaldl fOlJnd IJllaterol wheezing w tll
vent latlon testing estalJIIslllng moderate air floW obstruction.
A series of radlogrQPhlc films of the chest II ustrated normal
results. Dr. Tedaldl noted Holl has experienced frequent
exacerbations on a six to elyllt week basis requirIng treatment
With steroids, Offering an opinion tllat "exposure to the
~ caning solvents and cllemlcals seems to have been causal In her
asthma" (N.T.. P. 23), Ilr. Te(laldl concluded tile cont nulng
severity of Clalmont's respiratory pathology and "freQuenS
enOUgh asthma exacerbations" render hel "totolly disabled'
(N.I.. P. 67l.
10. In opposItion to Clallllant'~ evidence, WGH offered exhlbltst
the deposl tlon of Dr, Mlclwel Casey, ond two deposl tlons or
Nancy Laney.
11. Dr, caser' a Pllyslclan (eltlfll'd I)y tile American Boord of
Internal Med cine with expertise In pulmonary and crltlCO\ c.are
mediCine. evaluated the Clnlmant on Aprl I 14, 1989. A rev ew of
med eal record~ Indicated Hall hod asthmotlc symptoms Identified
by pl1Yslelons In October, 1983, with allergies to aspirin, cats.
and dogs noted as earlY as 1980. In a plws cal examInation. Dr.
Casey found normol blood pressure and no signs of wheezing. A
JUAN ITA ItAlL VS
SSN 580-66-3631
PAG[ 6
WAllMINS1LH (iLNLHAL ItOSPIlA'
series of ventilation stddles Identtfled decreased pi,. flow
rates conslstl'nt with mild ollsttuctlve lung disease. offeqng a
diagnOSIS of I>IOn(11Ial astlllllil, Dr. (nsey conclu(led 'It's
d fflcu t to lOIlf/(JCntIY !,tate t1wt It WilS feinted to onytlllng
tllat IWPpencd Will e sill' waf, at wOlk." (N.l" P. 1111. Ifowever,
Or. Casey did ilClv se Ifa 11 "not to wor k In nllY env t ronment where
}Iwre was nn~ !lo!isllJle t'XIJlISUlt' to (jw,t or illlY sorts of gaseous
, ' " N I' II' I C:)
IJIIlL 5 . .. .., P. J' IJ .
12. rile clall11dl1l'S testlmollY of ill I Intolelilllce to (Ieanlnll
fluids will e cmployed for WGIl III IlJ83-84 Is fullY Cll'(llll\e.
13. Upon review of the medical evldcnce, the Ileferee deems HIt!
flndlngr and COIlCI\Jsj'!ons of Drs. Snyder and Casey on the causal
connect on uf Ha s astlulla to work duties at WGH more
perSUBS ve than the testimony of Ilr. Casey. lhe Heferee findS,
therefore, that exposure to and Inlwlatlon of cleaning f,Ulds
while employed for WGIf avyrilvatcd or exacerbated Ital ' s
asthmatic patllology. ^ full statement of tile reasons
under!llnnlny tills finding I!, offered below.
14. As to Claimant's retained residual functional capacity, tile
Referee deems tile findings and conclusions of Dr. Casey more
persuasive than testimony of Drs. Snyder and Tedaldl. The
Referee finds, tl1erefore, tl1at l1all retains tile physical ablll ty
to perform work actlvl ty not expos IllY Iler to dl rt. dust. or
gaseous fumes.
15. Nancy Laney, a vocational rel1abllltatlon specialist wltl1 a
master's degree In counse lng, undertook a vocatlonal evaluation
of Juan I ta Hal' Upon rev I ew of med I ca 1 records and tile
Claimant s app cation for employment wltll WGIL Ms. Laney
Identified the allowing posl tlons allegedlY consistent with her
physlca , educational, and vocatlonH capacIty.
a) ACA Auto Parts - counter perSOl1, available August 30,
1990 at $5,00 per hour,
bl Mandee - casl1ler/sales person, avaIlable SePtember 19,
1990,
c) Denny's - Hostess, available September 18, 19901
~UaN 11 A IlAll VS WAltM I NS1 Lit GINI.lIAL !lOSP IT AL
!liUE ~BO-66-3b31
d) Carretour - casl1ler, available Scptcml)cr 24, 19901
c) AMC Ol(j(~ City Cllwma - la:;l1lcr, available October},
at $11. 50 per IlOur.
16. 11lC 1>051 lions Ident! flell In r 111111n\1 of Fact 15 are all found
wlllln la\l's Ictalned plw:;lral capacllr and available wilen
offerm!. lowevel. In I enson!> detaIled I)(! ow. \lIe posl tlons are
declluHl outside of Clillmant'!; I'xl~'\ln\ll'dllcallonal capacity.
17, ll1l' lestlmollY of Beatrice Ho~)~; un tile Claimant's ability to
read and write liS well as !lall's tC~Jtlm()ny In tills urea s fUllY
credible. lie Claimant b found. \Iwlcfore. unable to read or
write tile Engllsl11anguage.
lB. !lall's testimony of responding to all positions Identlfl~d
n FInding of Fact 15 Is fUl1r credible, 1lle Claimant s
rcsP(lnsel tllerefl)!!!, to \IH~ vocat onal effort of WGIt rises to
tile leve of uoo(l faltl1.
19. In presentation of tile Claim Petltlon, counsel for Claimant
Incurred tile following reasonable, related, and necessary
It!gatlon expenses,
al CorwlOnweal tll Reporting Co" transcript 2/24/92
bl Knlpes, Collen & Associates for tile deposition of
Nancy Laney
cl Dr. Jack W. Snyder for medical evaluation,
review, and testimony
dl Ilospltal correspondence copiers for Giuffre,
med I ca I records
el Record COpy Services for records of Dr. Malamud
f) Foster Court Reporting serVice, Inc. for
Depostlon of William McKenz e
g) Foster Court Reporting Service, Inc. for
Deposition of Dr. Snyder
hI Medical COpy Services tor records of
Dr. Casey
II Record COpy Services for records of Dr. Kessler
1990
(,
$73.90
72.75
2,000,00
24.20
B2.45
82.95
485.85
32,07
66,25
J) Medical COpy Services for Warmlnster Hospital
k) Medical COllY Services for recorels of Warmlnster
Hospital
I) Medical COpy services for medical records of
St. Joseph's Hosp tal
111) Conlllonwcfll \II Rellor tlng Company for hea ring
testimony 12/08/B8
n) Foster Court Heportlng Service for Ueposltlon
of Dr. Tedaldl
0) Medical COpy Services for records of Dr. Tedaldl
p) Record COpy Services for records of Warmlnster,
Or. Weisman and Dr. Casey
Q) Record COpy Services for records of Dr. Topkas
r) Foster Court Heport\ng Service, Inc. for
DepOSition of Beatr ce ROS5
s) Knlpes-Cohen Associates for deposition of
Nancy Laney
t) Kn IDeS Cohen Hellor tlng Company for Depos I tI on
of Michael Casey
u) Subpoena for Beatrice Ross
v) Subpoena for Warmlnster Hospital
W) Subpoena for Warmlnster Ilospltal
and Phlco 30,00
20, The CI~mant has a fee agreement WIth her couns~I, John
McEIvenny, saul ref for twenty percent 201) of all benefits
received un er the Act,
Ji^NITA IlALl VS WAIU1INS1LH GENERAL 1l0SPllAI.
S N 580-66-3631
P GE 8
110.29
51.14
11.55
89.90
281.45
88.61
325,60
149,25
67.85
47.65
170,10
25.00
15.00
JUANITA HALL VS WAHMINS1ER G[NElIAl 1I0SPITAL
SSN 580-66-3631
PAGE 9
21. In a letter to tills Referee dated June 29, 1992 and
IntroduCeej as exhibit C-13, counsel for l1all requested
mposl tlon of counsel fees pursuant to Sectlon 1140 of the Act.
IJISCUSSION
TIle Issues at bar concern whether the astlllllatlc condl tlon
all physicians of record acknowledg() ilffllcts Juan to lIall was
caused or aggravated by her employment for WGII and, If so, the
extent and severity of tile resultlng Impairment.
As an Inl tlal argument. WGII alleges Hall subml tted no
evidence under Sect on 108 (n)(2) and (3) to meet the burden of
proof to establish lln occupational disease, Indeed, no
testimony establlslles Hall's llsthmatlc condition "Is causallY
related" to 110Spl tal work anellor her occupation In general, or
that the Incidence of asthma "Is substantial Y greater In that
Industry or occupation than 1.ll.the. general population," se~
Section 108 (n) of the Act. CI tlng as authorl ty Gener~
Ref[acto.rl~s Company ..Y..J1.~,A.B" opa. COlllllonweal th Ct.o ._' 60
~a 856 119~), WGA conte~~ no benefits can be awarde6 under
the Injury portion of tl~ Act (I.e. Sectlon 301 (c)) when a
Claim Petl flon Is fTIeounder the OCcupgtjonal dlseaseI!QLUOn
of lhe-Act.
Al though General RefLac.tQrles clearlY holds "nel ther the
Referee nor tile Boarocan Cl18nge the form of action sua spont~1
uld" at p, 857, tile record at bar clearlY establlslles tnaflJY
letter dated December 17, 1991, c.04mel for Hall !lillended._the
~tltl.Qn to proceed under tile Act 'for an Injury, , . . as
opposed to a named occupational disease. . ," (See exhibit C-
14),
Under tile Act, "amendments to Claim Petitions [grlor to tile
close of the recordl are liberally allowed." Swank Refrac.torles
Y.. W.C.A.B..LL Pa, COllll1onwealtll Ct. , 374 A,2d 537, 538
(}977)-; ._- Moreover, arnen.drnenlS to a cTalm originallY brought
under the Workers' CompensatIon Act to be considered under the
Occupational Disease Act (or vice versa) are generally allowed.
See, .e..9." Antllra TexHle, l.oc. v. W.C.A,B., 53 Pa, COIlIllonwealth
294, 416 A.2d 117r,.1 74 (980)-(at fourth and last hearing In
case, amendment allowed to bring petl tlon under Workers'
compensatlof.l Act lnstea.d of Occupational Disease Act). Se.e alsO
PaWloskY v, W,CJAJ!, JLatrobe Brewing Co.)t Pa. Conlllonwea tli
rf,_., 473A.2a LbO., 261 n. 3 (1984);-afrlrmed, 514 Pa. 450,
525 A. 2d 1204 (1981) ("a petl tI on may be-.oarnen-ded even .at the
lime of tbe Referee * tl.e.aLlilll If there Is no change In tile facts
underIVfng the calm' (empllasls added),
JUANITA IlAI.L VS WAlU'lINS1EIl GENEIlAl 1l0SPITAL
SSN 580-66-3631
PAGE 10
As of the amendment (late, Ila 11 Ilad res ted I ts case and was
merelY conforming the Petition to the evidence presented,
As such, consideration of Claimant's evIdence under the
Injury portIon of the Act Is proper and Just,
The testimony of lIall' s experts, Drs. Snyder and Tedaldl.
have been found credible and well SUlllHJrt linkIng Ilall's present
asthmatic condition to work duties.
Inl tl tallY I WGIl alleges tile opinions of the ClaImant's
medIca experts were too equIvocal to support a causal
connectIon,
800 I 8b~ L(1~~~) ~' J~~rt~lggw~%~flllO~ t C 'eAx'l~l'a'l r~~8 8fe' 6~Pden49~ptri 2~
CI\'I mant to establish a causal relationship between a work-
related IncIdent and disability, as follows:
Where there Is no ObVIOUS causal connection between
an Injury and the a Jeged cause, tllat connection
must be establlshe by unequivocal mediCa!
testimony, Zander v, Workmen's Compensation Appea
Board 68 Pa. Conlllonwealth 412, 4/j9 A,2d 78
(19821 Where medical testimony Is necessary to
estab Ish a causal connection, tile medical witness
must testify, not that the Injury or conditIon
mIght !lave or possiblY came from the assIgned
cause, but that In hIs professional opInIon the
result In question dId come from the assIgned
cause, Menarde v, Philadelphia Transportation Co"
376 Pa, 497, 103 A,2d 681 (1954) I MedIcal evidence
which Is less than positive or which Is based upon
pOSSibilities may not constitute legally competent
evIdence for the purpose of establishing the causal
relationshiP. BisesI v, Workmen's compensatIon
Appea Board, 61 Pa, COllvnonwealth Ct. 260, 433 A.2d
592 09811.
JUANITA HAll VS WAIU1INS1ER GENERAL 1l0SPI1AL
SSN 580-66-3631
PAGE 11
In conducting a review of testimony on cau~atlon, the
medica wi tness "entl re testimony must be revIewed and taken as a
Whole and a final decision Sllould not rest upon a few words taken
out of the context of the entire testimony." l~wJj. at p, 803,
~~8~IQ34~r8~bWt,J~(Pi~~!Jf9B~~\fBO)I. I'LLA,li... 54 a, ConlllOnwealth
A review of Drs. SnYder omj ledaldl's testimony establish
that at times, use of less certain language was used (I.e, Dr.
Snyder, N,T.. p, 21. the evidence "strongly suggests", and Dr,
Tedaldl, P. 27, the "likeliest explanation would be a
sens tlzatlon to those chemicals In 1984 that resulted In an
ongo ng problem with asthma")
However. as noted In PJ1Ul!tl~Jj~jlJ9 ..coU~9.~ ofOste.QJJathlk
:~djt;: v . W, C . A,]!. L Pa. Crunnonwca Itll 1: t. . ,j6,.. 2ilTl2
TI98 , a 'pllysTCfan's testimony need not tiave the ring of
a s certainty.
CertainlY I t Is not the law, as I t has been sometimes
argUedl that every utterance which escapes the lips of
a med cal wi tness on a medical subject. must be
certain, positive, and without reservation,
excePtion, or peradventure of a doubt, We repeat.
that ElS to facts Wlllch a Claimant must prove by
medical evidence, It Is sufficient that his medical
expert. after prOViding a foundation, testify that In
his professional OP nlon or that he believes or that
he thinks the facts exist. The Claimant has In such
event, produced competent evidence of the facts
which, If accepted by the fact finder will support an
award, even I f tile medical wi tness adml ts to
uncertainty, reservation, doubt or lack of
Information with respect to medical and scientific
detail Sl so long as the wi tness does not recant the
ORin on or belief fl rst expressed. .l!L-, at 134-135
of 465 A.2d.
When testimony of Claimant's experts Is revl~wed as a
wholel their opinions meet the standard of reasonable medIcal
certa nty, A few examples are Illustratlvel
JUANITA IIALL VS WAHMlNSTER GENEHAL 1l0SPITAl
SSN 580-66-3631
rAGE 12
DJ.l.-Slli'Jtel
N.T" p, 39, ."My opinion Is that l1er exposure to ore or more
chemical s during her employment at Warmlnster Genera Hospital
caused an aggravation of her asthmatic condition."
N,T" p, 98, . ."1 have stated It [exposure to chemicals at WGHI
caused her aggravation"
N.T., p, 99. . ," I'm saying, , .the stuff at the 110spltal
caused It and I'm also saying tllat the way she was forced to use
I t by the hospl tal aggravated the problem and made I t much
worse."
~
N.T., p, 77. . ."The chemical exposure lat WGHl would have been
the cause".
NoTI' P. 74. . ."In my opinion I felt It [chemical exposure at
WGH was the causation,"
Taken as a whole, Drs, Tedaldl and Snyder have offered
opinions within the realm of reasonable medical certainty.
Of greater Import. tile testimony of the Claimant' s ~xperts
IS fully credible, Dr, Snyder persuasivelY testified cleaning
flUids Hall used on an everyday basis at WGH Initiate, sensitize,
or contribute to respiratory pathology (N.T" p, 22-23)1 that the
length of exposure to such chemicals affects "the like Ihood" of
experiencing respiratory pathology (N.T., p, 24), that mixing the
chemical s as did Hall "represents a far more substantial
respiratory Irritation" (N.T" P. 109), and that medical records
pre 1983 Indicate Hall "would Ilave a predlsposl tlon to the
development of astllma upon exposure to agents suctl as she was
exposed to."
other ~~Sks~~~~6Hn10l~'st~~~df~~rUd~~~n}~~~iy ~l~OstJ~~~~J u~~tg~
cigarettes had been ruled out.
JUANITA IlALL VS WARMINSTER GENERAL 1l0SPITAL
SSN 580-66-3631
PAGE 13
In addl t1on, the employer's medical expert conceded
exposure to cleaning fluids Is a risk factor for asthma and
aCknowledged medical records from 1983-1984 of Hall's Inl tlal
treatment at WGH "suggests. . , a relationship between the
ct1emlcal exposure and aggravation of her asthmatic condition,"
(N T. p. 37). See also P. 43, wllere Dr. Casey concluded It was
"plaUSible that exposure to the cleaning fluids aggravated tile
underlYing lastlllnatlcl predlsposl tlon."
In short. linking Claimant's astllllwtlc condl tlon to her
work at WGH rests upon firm scientific and medical support.
WGH Ilas SOU911t to reduce Its liability In this matter by
Introduction of vocational evidence alleging Hall retained the
residual functional capacitY at least by August, 1990 to perform
alternative and existing work within her retained residual,
educational, and vocational capacity.
The \ssue, therefore, concerns the effort of WGIL through
I ts rehab I I tat I on exper t, Nancy Laney, to Ident I fy and not I fy
Juanita Ha 1 of occupation and Job referrals "which Claimant
could medicallY perform and Claimant's responslblll ty to follow
UP these referrals In good faith In light of ac nsk
w~men's c%mpe~satlili~ea ~ard__~co Const uct 0 0 a.
5 A,2d 37 ( 1m an ar a _-'LLW()rkme1~ om e sat 0 e
ore Ll~e pSU.IJllK:e com a" .
. , ~aY -rJIS t lIC t1Jl1l v , u ~ II Pa. Conmonwea I th
Ct" 536 A. (1.
The Referee finds Hall retains the residual functional
capacl ty to perform all posl t10ns delineated In Finding of Fact
15. The parties. moreover, expended much effort aortraYlng their
actions as representing the highest standards of 'good faith".
On the ultimate Issue of the propriety of Hall's response
to the offered positions, the Claimant credibly testified on
February 24. 1992 to InterViewing for all Jobs detailed In
Finding of Fact 15 and of not receiving a Job offer,
AI though Nancy Laney alleged to her knowledge Hall "did
not" apply for any of the positions (See exhibit 0-4, p, 11), no
basis Is offered for this conclusion nor does Ms, Laney Indicate
what efforts were undertaken to verify this belief.
JUANITA IlALl VS WAHMINS1EH GENEHAI. 1I0SPITAI.
SSN 580-66-3631
PAGE 1~
If a Claimant applies for and does not receive tile eXlsflng
~ogfA~~ entitlement to benefits continues as a matter of IlW,
a t
Moreover, till s Referee l1as ser lous doubts over wl1ettler Hall
had ttle educational capablll ty to perform ilnJ' of the enumerated
positions, As testlfled jJerSUaSIVelY by Beatrice Ross, the
Cla},mant's literacy tutor, Inll "cannot spell a word. . . .onller
own' (N,T" P. 10) and for rel1dlnq purposes, Is Instructed out of
a first grade workbook,
All posl tlons In Finding of Fact 15 rC(jul re ~ tiler
preparation of wrl tten Invoices, maintenance of guest I sts,
review of price sheets. typing or at the very least. an ab II ty
to read and write at a level Itall does not possess,
While true that Ms. Laney's Inability to meet wit" Hall and
speclflca lJ, Question on her Iltera.CY level cannot preJudl.ce the
~~1~aOY3f4 t'PJ~IH, \a~f~~jJ ts ral~1i1g co('~no~~~a I tnleCtc lalii1an~~~
testimony of January 20, 1988 wllere Ita I I related a /I Tlhree
grade/l level of education and an Inability to read or write the
English language (N.T.. P. 6)
As the ability to read and write Is a critical variable of
most work pas I tI ons. one wou I d have expec ted Ms. Laney to make
some effort to determine tile Claimant's proficiency In tills area
rr:e:-talK to co-workers, seek out lJrlor employ,ers as listed on
her application), Laney, after al ' had no 'Information, , ,
regarding the Claimant's educatlona background" (See exhlbl t 0-6
to the depos I tI on of Nancy Laney taken on March 26, 19911, but
was aware Hallls work history was primarily Janitorial,
Interestingly, Laney Indicated In her report all of /Ilia I s
former Jobs required minimal conrnunlcation skills, education, ."
Al though unable to meet wi t11 Ita I I , an effort to determine
the Claimant' educational status greater than demonstrated bY
Laney could have been easily attempted or In the alternative, Ms,
Laney could Identify work positions not reQu ring Iteracy
greater than needed In her prior position with WGH.
In short. the posl tlons enumerated In Finding of FacJ 15
reQU I re an educatl ona I I eve I I n excess of that posse sse by
Juan ta Hall, No modlflcatlon to benefits can, therefore, be
estab II slled,
JU~NlTA IlALL VS WAHM1NS1Ell GENElIAL ItOSPl1AL
55 580-66-3631
PA E 15
As to Interest due and owing on the award. WGIt requested
fO\'felture of all Interest. In response thereto, counsel for
Ita 1 offered exhl>lt (-9 detailing problems In presentation of
the Claimant's casc,
In Section 1135 ((I) (III), tlle Act requires "Claimant's, ,
, forfeit any Interest tl1at would normally be payable to them
with respec t to any per lod of unexcused (Ie I ay wh 1 ell they have
caused. "
The record ref lects counsel fOI' WGII objected on the reC~[d
to the delayed presentation of lIal 's claim on JulY 28, 1 88
(N)..T., p, 4-5), October 6, 1988 (N.T., p, 4-5), and August 6.
19':11 (N. T ., p, 5 -]) .
Despite waiting almost the entire statute of limitations
period to file tile \letl tlon after experiencing full wage loss on
July 21. 1984, Ital required two Ilearlngs and nine months to
testify and nIne (9) hearings over three (3) years to Introduce
her medical evidence, To place In perspective, lIall closed her
case six years and five days after Incurring wage loss.
This Is hardlY tile speed contelllplated l)y tile Special Rules
of Administrative Practice and Procedure before Referees, 34 Pat
Code 131.61. In tile presentation of a claim. Moreover. as noted
bY counsel for WGIt, the delay In~alred Its ability to defend as
potential witnesses had (llsappeared (See, N.T. October 6, 1988,
p, 4 illld the depOSition of Mr. MckenzIe, N,T, p, 6. where It was
noted Hall's Sljperv SOl'S In 1983-1984 had left WGll's employ).
S~e also notes of hearIng of October 6, 1988, page 4, where
alfhOU9h covnsel for Claimant lneJlcated "tllere should be no undue
de ay" In closing his case, an additional two years was required,
Although conceding this matter was a difficult claim, this
Referee finds Hall's delay In presentation of her case was
excessive, unjust! fled, and desp\ te protestations to the contrary
In exhibit C-9, unexcused.
Finally, Hall In exhibit (-13 seeks Imposition of cOLJnsf(1
fees under Section 440 of the Act on the basis of Dr, Casey s
testimony. However, lack of testlmorw In general of a discrete
Incident of Wilen tile Claimant experienced her Injury with Hall's
credibility utlmatelY In Issue on the chemcals used was a
reasonab e basis for WGIt to contest the claim,
JU~NITA IIAll VS WARMINSTER GENEIlAl 1I0SPIlAL
SS 580-66-3631
PAGE 17
p, ~I Objection overruled,
P, ob ect on sustalnedl
P, 8~-84 ob ect ons sustained,
P, 8 -87 ob ectlon sustained,
e) Deposition of Dr. Casey
P, 21 o~ ectlon overru cdl
P, 22 o cctlon overru edl
p, ~I 01) ec tI 011 over ru ed I
P, ob cctlon ovcrru edl
p, ~r ob ectlon overru edl
p, ob ectlon overru e~'
p, ~~ ob ectlon overru e I
P, ob ectlon overru edl
f) Deposition of Nancy Laney taken on June II. 1992
p, 10 ob ectlon overru ed,
p, H ob cctlon overru edl
p, ob ect on overru edl
p, 23 ob ectlon overru edl
p, 25 o~ ectlon overru ed,
p, ~~ o ect on overru ed,
P. oh ectlon overru edl
e) Deposition of Beatrice Ross
p, 5 Objection overrulfdl
P, 14-16 ob ectlons overru edl
~illons
Objections to exhibit D-2 are overruled,
Upon consideration of the aforesaid dl5~us5lon, the
fQIIOWlng Conclusions of Law and Order are mandated as a matter
of aw,
JUeN ITA flAll VS WARM I NSTEH GENEHAL flOSP IT AI.
SS 580-66-3631
P^ E 18
!;!1NCLUSJ Q.NS..DE .LA.W
I. All parties are governed by provisions of the Pennsylvania
Workmen s Compensation Act. iJS amended.
2. Juanita Ilall has met her burder) of proving that she
sustained \l work-related Injury on July 20, 1984 precluding
return to l1er !nlor occupation for Warmlnster General 1I0spltal
beg I nn I ng on Ju Y 2}' 1984.
3i Juan Ita lIa II Is entl t 1 cd to compensatl on bener I ts of
t 85.60 per week for temporary total dlsablll ty from JulY 21,
984 to continue until and unless altered pursuant to tile Act,
4. Wannlnster General HospItal sl1all pay all litigation bills
Incurred as detailed In Finding of Fact 19.
5-1. All Interest due on tills award Is JQLfrlted under Section
4,5(dl (III) of tile Act.
6, Tile contest of tills matter was reasonable.
ORI!ER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 28tl1 day of October, 1992, the Claim
Petition of Juanita lIall Is GRANTED.
Warmlnster General 1I0spl tal sl1all reml t wi thout Interest
t~mporary total weeklY Indemnl ty benefl ts of $185160 from JUlY
21, 1984 and all II tlgatlon expenses delineated n Finding of
Fact 19.
1993. (I(xhlldl Al Th.. l'lllllloll lor llul'tllhVd....M W88 Bl'''llllld lu
Polll'lIlr)' 12, 1990 11111 ,llllllu,1 IU lu Ih" Clalm'IIII 8 coml'UIIHlIllUII
I.hllr..aller.
6. AdmlLllld III "arl. III Ull ul'd.... dulll,1 M..rth 1,1994. Ihe
Wor~ar'a Coml'ollo..llolI Al'l'o..1 Iloard ..lllrmlll tho 1'llIdllllll ul 1'8el,
CUllclulJollB ul Law "lid onl!!I' ul t h!! Will' I< tiI , h l'ollll'Olloolloll Jlldn".
Wu'mlllaler Illod "II Appeal III Ih.. CUmlllllllwuollh Cuurl. Wormillsler
a h 0 1/1" daB up" I' Bed l! .. e I' e I it I 0 II wit h I h ,. A I'll(' .. I II 0 0 1',1 .. II d I II a II
order doled April 14, 1994. Dofendalll's 11I"llIesl lor 0 Bu"ursudeolil
1'''lldlllB 0111'....1 10 Iho Commollwll..lth Cllllrt W8b dOIlI'HI. (n.." I'.Mllihll
HI BIllee Warml1l81er had 1101 bee" IIr8"lod .. HlIl'oreodu8., Clalmalll
/loll 1'1... unlilled 10 I'aymellt 01 d,dPl'red Wllrklll". C081.".1I8..111I11
beneflle Irom July 21. 19H4 III o"d jllcludlllll Febl'u..ry 12. 1990 wllh
Jllleree.. Oil eJI delenod cllm"olleallllll I'a yo", II I 8 Irum Ihe dale III Ih"
ord..r 01 Ihe Wor~or'e Compell8allo" JutlBe Oil November 30. 1992.
7. DellJ ed ae ..o..ed. 11..11' e COlllloe I 1'I"lueoled p"Y8lelll of
ell delerred WOI'~er'. Coml'o1l88110" bOlloflls I'''Y8ble 10 Ih.. CI..im..II'
811d Iholl demalldl!d paymell' sllleo Warlldllaler h..d 1101 obl..llled 8
Bupereedaa. ellher fr"m th.. WOI'kOl'8 C"mplllla..llolI AI'Pllal 1I0ard or
Ihe Communweallh COUll. HIllc~ Wal'mjllale,' did 1101 m8~l! puymolll to
.ali8ly Ihe declaj,," of
the Apl'ea I
IIlllIl'd or I he WOl'l<ul' II
COPlllon..IIun Ju,IBe, Clolm8111 'a coulIs,d IlI",1 e I'r..elliplllol' lJelll\llt
JlIdllmelll 111 Ihe I<moullt of $ lO.OOU.UU.
II . I) (III led 81. a I a t ''II. U 11 I h" C' 0 11 118 I Y. III< I I '8 C U 111\8 e I did
1101 1'"'''llve 8 lelt 01' ("011I Phi .", 01 "'lec~H 111 I'I<yml!1I1 of t hI! .wal'd
\111111 JUIIIl 16, 1994 III wllil'h IIUl8 Clalollllll had 1III!d u d.IIIUll
judBmell1 8Balllal defelldalll. l'hi')I' 11I8uI'allco COIIII'..IIY, ill Ihe .PlUlllIl
01 $ 30.000.00 ill QI'<:ol'll/lll<:o wllh Iho lilld,."',,
11/111'. I)ollll/lal 011 Jlllle I b, 1994 Wl'olo 10 I'hl.,u
\ hal I I had I'o<:el y,"J 0 hUIII' <.I a 1",1 JIIIIl! j,
callcllllalloll <.Iatol III Jlllle 7 all<.l JUliO I], 1994.
(;011I1"-111101 i 1111 A<: I .
IlIlIUl'allCe Cuml'an)'
J 994 wi Ih ,,"lIlolll'
(!leo ExhilJlI C)
I' h I co' II It" I 0 I' 01 J 1111 0 :I, I 9 9 4 mad U I' ,of 0 I' u II C I! III <: h u d. "
III pa)'mulIl 01 I.hll award I II tho 011I1111111 III
11811 and $ 1l,417.0S I'uyald.. lu Cluim..III.'1I
$ 4~,b86.21 1'0Yllhlo lu
CUUnfi(~J .
(5e.' Exhlhi 1
0) 1I0wavlIl', o"cloou<.l wilh tho lel.lol' WIlI'II <:hucks III tho omoulIl 01
$ 43,122.1121'0)'01110 lu CI..lmalll lIaJJ 811d $ 10.700.71 I'/lyohlu I"
Clalmallt'l cOUllool. (SUI! I!xhildt 1::) Tho amoullt 01 lho ched,u did
not conlol'm to Iho /lmOUIII Hel lol'lh III tho 1011.1'" III ....ylllclll 01 thl!
award.
Both Iho lelll!l' Il'llm "hicu 01 JUIII' ]. 1994 and tho chocka
onclo.od b)' !'hlco failed 1.0 801.Iuly tho amounl III cumpoIIY8tion
pa)'ahlo to Clalmalll1l811 101' I.olal tllb,,'''llly Il'um ,July 21. 1904 to
Pabru.ry 12, 1990. The cul'l'oct alnuullt ul compollsatlulI bUllolllo fOl'
dalarred dlasbl I Jt)' 1'0)'menI.8 OIllOUIII,..1 lu $ ~] ,90'1. S4. IntHoul wa/;
I'.)'sblo "" Ih.t amoullt trolD tho dalo 01 Ihu Workul"o CompollHatiun
Judie's declslolI 01 Ocloll.", 28.1992 s\ IIIP "'i1,- 0/ t'''1 ..eltl!nl "UI'
allllum, a tuui! 01 $ 0,990.119. Tho lotal alnoUlI1 01 tho "ollll'oll/lal.lulI
"ayable 101' tlolOl'rt!l1 "(""""11801 lUll wilh IlIlel'obl W8b III 1111' 80lUIIIII,
0/ $ 62,902.43. Tho \.ol.al 811I011111 du.. Ulld I'oyuhl.. 10 tho I:Ioilll8111.
W/18 $ 50.321.'H.
Tho 101 U I III110UIII p8)'01d tI lu 1101 J '0 coUIIII.,1 8a
aI\.Ol'lIay'. IIlOI was $ 12,~0()./dl.
9. AdmJlled, I.:lollllalll'B <:ou1I801 IIled It NUllce 0/ lIe/Bult
Jlld11DB1I1 l'urauIIlI1 \.0 th. I'rlld,iulla 0/ Ihe Wurkor'a CompallBullulI
Ac I .
10.
P'IIII"I/," 81111,,<1.
11,,1)'. ""11118,,1 U"IIIIIII.d 8 JUtlallll'1I1
pII1'8UIIIII 10 lhe lIol"lull"" CUmp"""BI i 011 A.' I \Je"IIU"1l I'h I ,," alld
II a I' ad II a Illl' I 0 i I ".1 a 1111 I- 0 III " e I) I II 1'8 y 01 I' "" I ,,,I "UIIII'" II a II I i 0 II "a II ," i I ·
wllh illlel'eal 8a pl'ovldod I>y lhe lIol'''ul''o COIIIIIOll80tioll Ad BIIlI
IherlOaller. I'hiclI 11,"<1.11',..1 th.. 111l'lIll'e"l 81110llnl ut cUIIII,ollaal iUII
\J01l81 ila with inluroot ill pUYlllonl III tho uword.
II. l>elll<"la.81111"'1. 011 Iha "ulIll'ary, d"lelldlllll J. allll ill
delaull of paymenl ul Ihe currucl IlmUUlI1 01 ,'olllpell.llliulI \J811l1l ito
10 Ihe Claimallt.
12. Dellled 118 atulnd.
13. Pellied II. ..lollOd. UII Ihe cuntrary. Claimalll 1101118
entltlld to comlle".alloll I>ellellto PUI'811""1 10 lb. lIorket'h
Compell.alion Act "lid "lellderillll" all illcorl'ecl IlblOUlI1 III
complllutllln bellu(it. i. in violltlollo( tho lIol'ker'a COlnpUlla"lioll
Act. C I I i m "" , lis I I I. III' nd u .... "'''1 U II at" I h a I I hoC 0 U rI d., II Y
defelldlllt'a I'etitloll 10 Opell ,ludllm""1 Ill' 10 iliaI'll. Iho <luc"ul
judgmelll "a 0..11811<.d.
1lIIIiIH~I'URE II Jo ruolludlully te'luIl81"d Ihal llli. CUllrl
.lellY delulldllllt'R Motioll 10 Opell s 1)1,(111111 Judllmunl or ill Ihll
..It,,rn8Iive 10 PlBrk 1111' JII<llllllulII 1I0....IJallo<l. l'lllilltill
respucllully l'I"lueo'o this COUl'l 10 l'I'UCllUd 10 UIlIOI' Mil OI'PI'ol'l'iltll
award 01 aUllrlley'u lee. due III 11111 COlla 01 Illlllullllll 01 Ihu
l'e\.II, lOll.
.......... ---... .. .-..,..-- ....-.
\r. .DEN'S '::XlEtfU::Otf aJu:. 80' Ul
..........tJIlJ
~ 92. 31ql
JUANITA HALL, Clatmont
5105 Nortl111th Stroet
PI1i\,ldl!lpl1lil. Pa 191~1
, ,.c1C1oa 'aw lu,.w..d...
1:1':'.. by Af'.u..c.
vs.
, I.'.' 580-66-3631
WAHMINISTER GENERAL HOSPITAL., O.f.nd.n!
225 Newtown Road
WorlTllnlster. Pa 1897~
BrII'
Phtco Insuranc. Company
One Phlco Drive
P.O. Box 85
Mechanlcsburg. Pa 17015
, tuuu'l cur..n
John F. McElvenny, Esqulr.
Robinson Building. Suit. 1011
~2 South 15th Street
Philadelphia. Pa 19102
, ""hol--,'. CoIalu.J.
Petar Harrison. Esquire
/1800 JFK Boulevard
19th Floor
Philadelphia, Pa 19103
, D"V~~'" C. -'11
.u..u..1
.. a. .J .1. &iU l~th
..,. ..
January. 1993
. ,.....
..,,_ ...nc.oa.' ..,.1' ~.' s hc.C.cra fo.. I............ ,c... 1a die
...,.. l..U... ..... cAe "" huc.n 'a.. Ill'."...... 1.1 11.......,.
.......... II February 12. 1990 I In&c ~.... CO t!'!..--,'. ~....ual&
-
clIlneaA"., ... ....e.. .. co _<l'Sq_1 ......... uui /la.CI. Stan.orT
1a...... ca b. plWl. n p..c....u .......un.
rr no; ao.u.o I
~.- '7~
~ . V I ~
.j. "'~"')4'...a-""- -1t ,
JAN 1 ., I
C I I'
d I I ,/ I
1\
5, Ms, lIall was entitled 10 compensallon hellenlS for $185.60 per week for lemporal')'
tOlal dlsahlllty from July 21. 1984,
6. This decision was ulthnolely aftlrl11ed hy Ihe Workmen's Compensallon Appeal
Board on Fehruary 3. 191)3, (See EKhihil "U").
7. Suhsequenlly, Clalmanl's counsel t1Ied a praecipe In lhe Court of COlllmon Pleas,
Cumherland County. docketed 94-3271 Civil. to enter judgment againsl Defendant, I'IIICO
Insurance Company, in the al11ounlof $30,000.00 in accordance with Ihe certified copy of lhe
workers' wmpensalion referee order and decision from the Department of Labor & Industry.
Bureau of Workers' Compensalion. (See EKhlhit "C").
8. On June 3. 1994, II represerllatlve fWl11lhe PIIICO Insurllnce COlllpany mailed
checks in the al11ounlof $43,122.83 and $10,780.71 respeclively In selllel11entoflhe judgment.
(See Edllhlt "))").
9. On June 16, 1994. Claimllnl's counsel filed a Notice of Default Judgment against
Defendant as he had not received lhe checks. (See EKhihlt "E").
10, Claimant's wunselohtained judgl11cntnfier the monies were already lendered,
II. Moving ))efemJalll helieves and avers that judgment was inapproprialely lakenlls the
monies were lendered to Clohllant's counsel.
12. Moving Defendanf further avers lhat Ihe inslant petition has been med promptly
within notice of the entry of the default.
2
.'Ull.." :-... "ll.~)~
t-fo:UII t-W;.l ....Hl' -:'I...Hl.LL.f-,'.,
il,.l t1.bllf.l'
F...uE .1)1<< 013
J~ANITA HAll VS WARMINSTER GENERAL HOSPITAL
& N 580.6G~3631
P GE 18
~mu;.lJJ.SlmtSJ)tJ.AW
1. All parties are governed bY Ilrovl5lons of the pennsylvania
Workmen s compensation Act. as amended.
2." Juanita tiall has met her burden of proving that ~he
sustained a work.related Injury on JulY 20, 1984 rrecludlno
return to her prior occupation for Warmlnster Genera lIosp! tal
beglAnlng on July 21, 1984.
3. Juanl ta Ita II Is cnt! tied to (ompen~at Ion beneJ I ts of
$185.60 per week for teovorary total dlsllbll i ty trOl1\ ulY 2l.
1984 to continue until and unless altered pl'lsuant to ttle Act.
4. Warml nster Genera I lloSP Ita I sl1a II nay a II II tI gat! on bill s
Incurred as detaIled n F ndlng of fact 19.
Sol All Interest due on this award iL1Q[1.e.Ue.lj under Section
4)5(d) ( II) 0 the Act.
6. .,~The contest of thIs matter was reasonable.
0fWffi
AND NOW, 10 WIT, thIs 28th day of October. 1992. the Claim
Petition Dt Juanita Hall Is GRANTED.
Wannlnster General llospltal shall remit l'llthout Intere$t
n~PO{9~~ a~odta~1 tenng~rfg~n~~~e~~~~t ~~, Ig~atJ951~O Ft~~Tn~Ub~
Fact 19.
I
EXHIBIT
I Il
,
J~ 21 '94 09140
FROM POST AND &CHELL,P,C.
TO H-1l.RO
ME.e14;0<l1
.
COHHOHlfIALTH OF PENN8VI.VAHIA
DEPARTMENT OF LM)OR AND INDUSTRY
MORKNIN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD
U2-3141
JUANITA HALL : Appeal by Defendant
5105 N. 11th Street and Clailll8nl
Philadelphia, Pa. IP141 :
fro. Order
VI. I of Judge OUn
WARHINSTER GENERAL HOSPITAL . 8.8. , 580-66-3631
225 Newtown Road
. Warlllinster. Pa. 18974 . AFFIRMED
Philadelphia/ F.b. ], IPP3
PHICO INSURANCE CO. I Insurance Carrier
On. Phioo Drive .
lox a021
MlohanloaburQ, Pa, 110&5
.
.
JOHN r HCE~VIHHY, ESQ. . CIai..nt'. Coun..l
1011 RObin.on 81d9. '. .
. .
.
NW Cor. l&th , Cheat. street .
Philad.lphia, Pa. 19102
I
PETER H I~I50N, ESQ. . Defendant'. counsel
lPth Floor
1800 Jrl< Blvd. .
Philadelphia, Pa. lUO)
I
"
I
EXHIBIT
. )
\ ,
JUH i1 '94 0914U
FRQ1 POST ~lD SCtELL,P.C.
TO H-1l.RG
PAJE.OUSI'041
.
Ava.)141 Pa;8 2
o P 1 H ION
IWfJORSItI, CHAllUWf I
Both partiua app.al from tha deoision of JUdQe olin wherein h.
awardta Claillanl's PetitIon for COql~n.ation. Otfanaant alle;ea
that the judge trraa in his Finding. of Fact and Concluaions of Law
by aootpting m.aical t..tillony that did net 8upport hi. deel.ion
that the injury waa work-related and the judQ8 erred by conoludinQ
that Oefendant haa not ~.t its burd.n of provlnQ a modification of
weekly beneC1ts dua to the hot that work was avaUable to
Claiaant within her phy.lcal and edlteaUonal rB.triction.. The
Clai..nt contend. that the judge err.d in finding that'Defendant
had a r.a.onable b.-is to cont..t tht peU UOII and. Ulat the judqe
.rred in forfeil1nQ inter.at b..ed on exc...ive delay.
"
. .
On July 20, 1984, Claimant was in the employ of Defendant a.
a janitor. Claillant fUed tht elli. Petition on Jun. II, IVI7
alle;inq that .he heeaee totelly dieebled on July 20, IV84 a. a
result of inhal1nq toxic fume. froll t.he oleaning .olution. .ht w..
u8ing. D.f.ndant riled a timely an.wer danyinQ the allIgation..
Aftar olusin9 the recold, the judgt oirculated hi. deuhlon on
Novelftber lO, 1992 concluding that clall1lent lIIet hllr burd.n"or
pl"ovil1<J that sho incurrell . work nlatea injury on July 20, 1184.
furt.her. t.ho jll<IQI C01101U11e<t that, dUll to ClaimAnt's
SUI.I '94 09141
.
FROM POST AND SCHELL,P.C.
TO H-ElJ;'G
Pf:(E.016,10<11
Ata~3141 Pa9' 3
lUll.rauy, the jobs otterad to Claimant by Defendant wen not
wi thin her educational reat:riotions, hence no lIIoditioaUon w..
urlt.nl1. 1'118 jud",e e180 concluded that Defendant' fl mel.llcal
1111"" \'. tltathlonY on tho h8Ue of \:nulu,Uon and wnrk-r.latedlleBS
lion. created a r.aaonable cont.at. Finally, Judgo Olin conoluded
.-
th.t alai.antl. inability to conclude this mstter until after 6
v,"re con.Ututed excee.ive delay thus he forfeited int.nat.
The.. appell. followed.
When the part.v with the burden of proof in II ollse involving
lhe "a""sVlvania Workmen'. Compsnlllltloll "ct 18 HllOOBsdul before
lh. jud9' thll board Is lim1t;od on appeal to datumintn", it the
jUdge .sde an error of law, and ie r.quired to DI.ure thllt".
".u...ary rindinCjfI of raot are supported by co.petent evid.nc.,
Il1aphlLd ~_ tforkaen" co.oen..t1on.. APP81l Bqard, 443 A..ad 861
(IU3). The jUdIJ8 is the 801. Finder of raot in th..e ca...,
lln1VlUel ~aloD. Sb,.l cprporationJ. Worne"'. cO.plansatian
~ppe.l Board, )Oa ".2d 751 (1973), and he may accept any witnes.'
t..timony in whOle or In part. f.medCAJLRefUUClratot--'.OlIPaJlY v.
HcIk..n~1 cO.planaaUon .ppttJl Boatl1, 377 A.2d 1007 (1977). The
juctge 18 tree to accepl or rojeot the te.t1mony Qt any loll tn..B,
I no 1 ud I nq med I C8 1 wit nu. 8S . U1I1flfL_Y.L..Jf~kIDEln ' .. COlQ(I8npa tJJw
^ppttal Boar~, 440 A.2d 664 (1982).
In view of the aut.hority qiven to the judge, W. aqree that the
JU~ 21 "4 09142
FROM POiT AND SCHELL,P.C.
10 H-B~1l
PAClE.1/J17.10<l1
A92-]141 paqe 4
jud\le'l f'1ndlnql of raot ar. '.len.rally lupported by competent
evidence, and that he has appropriately nUed on and deCllded whioh
evidenoe Wall oredible and competent. In lhia case the judge chose
to believe Claimant'. modical expert., i.e. Dr. Snydu and Or.
'r.ddd1, who opined that the exposure to the chemicals in the
cl.aning solvent. u.ed by Claimant at the worksite oluaed an
a99rAVst.!on ot Clailllant'. pre-exhting ..thAlatic oondition
rendninq her totally disabled frolll that poeition. Me aee no
reaaon to disturb the jUdqa's Findin9' ot Faot or conclusiona of
Law on the issue of work-relatedne.s as aama are eupported by
.ub.tantial competent evidence of record.
w. now turn to Defendent's ap~al on the issue of
aod1tioltion. It i. the defendant'. ar\lu..nt on appeal, that they
proved then was w04"k available to the Clalllant and the judv"erred
in not reduoil19 the Claimant'. weekly compensation. In a
modification requ..t the burden of proof is on the defendant. '1'h1e
burden i8 to show that disability has ended or has been reduced and
that work is available to tho Claimant. c8ilo }{, Worqen'8
~Ation Appeal Board, 531 A.2d 552 (1917). In tho8e instances
in which there haa not been a complete recovery, the.detllllldant !lUst
ahow that thar. 11 work available to the clabant. In Kachin.k1-Y.....
Work.eJl.~JLC\)lPl,I8nSl1.iwl Appea! Board, ~32 A. 2d 374 (1907), the Coart
h... pet fOl'th guideline. Which Plaa.. r..pondbllitv on both the
defendant and the clai.ant, Th.ae ca... hold that the Claimant
JlJl ~I "~ 091~"
FRIJ1 POST AIm 5CH::LL I P, C.
TO H-1i..RIl
FroE.0IB'041
A92-3141 Pao& 5
nUlt Ihow . ohange in phYlical condition or the Clsinant. (That
1" t.hllt. the Claimant is no lon(jJ8r totally d1Babled.) The
defendant must also show evidence of a referral or feferral to
.peoitlo jOb opportunitiu. 'I'he chiman\: then mUst evidence 8 good
raith, tollow lhrou9h on the referralu. It then the referrals fail
to result in a job, than the ClailDant's bonefits should continue.
Our IICOpe of review is to detenuinfl whuther or not there hal been
an error of law and to insure that all neceSSlIl'Y findings of hot
are aupported by c~~petdnt aVidence. ~I~.te of Francil J. HoGovarn
Y. Workmen's ComDlnJA1ion Appeal Board, 417 A.Zd ~2J (1986). The
jUdqe is the finder ot tact. univ,r.al ~yclQP. ste.l Corporation
~A...JfQll~lIill!..I. compensatlcm AI:IPtllLBo,r\1, 3015 A.3d 757 (1973). It
1, thl judoe'l function, 88 tact tinder, to re.olve contliotlnq
flvi de nee . lWLJohnaQn CQ, V dt(grAllln~.kWIlRtnllt1Dn AppeAl.JIg.J.t4,
396 A.2d 872 (1979). It JII not an error of 11101 on the jUdO'" pert
to resolve conflictinq evidence. ~.lJ V. Workmlp's cD~n'.tlon
AJuaALBoard, 434 A.2d 904 (1987).
In the case sub judice, the judge accepted both the Claimant'.
t.sst.i\nony 4nd that of her 11 teracy tutor, Beatrice Ro.., that the
p08ition8 Dlade available by PeClllJdllnt. t.o Claimant. required Clainant
to be ablu tu road IIn(1 write, which, Clllilllllnt can not do. Roth
witneuoa, Clllllllant and Hs. non, pr'uvll1ed Bubst.anti II I cOlllpetent
evidolJ(lo noncern1nq tho elalmanl'u unellployabillty in thsse
lU~ 21 '94 09143
.
FROM POST AND SCfELL,P,C,
TO H-BLm
ProE,019/041
,\92.3141 Page 6
posiUons. The jUdge, as per h1a dhcntion, chose to believe that
t.stimony and AgAin, we .ee no reason to disturb these Findin91 ot
Faot or conclusions of I.aw.
We now turn to the Claimant's appeal, and flnt we shall
discuss the reasonable cont.at laBue. JudQe Olin ooncluded that
O.tendant dld have a reasonable bade for the oonte.t. It is the
law that in cuee illvolvinQ unreasonable conte.t an attorneya tee
award 1& the rule and their exclulIion is the exception to be
.'
applied only in ca... where the record eatablished a nllonable
basi. tor the contest, King at 81 v. Hillvale Sport..an'. Cl~,
InQ..., J~ Va. cOlUIlIonw8Illth Ct. 339, 193 A.2d 49 (1978). A
deternlinalion of whether a contest 18 rea.onable, b..w on taot.
found by the judO., ia a legal concludon. Ball v, Work.en's
CD_pansation Appeal Batra, 19 Va. Co..onwealth ct. 157, 340 '\.2d
610 (11175).
, .
".
In the instant case, detendant introduced the testimony of Dr.
Ca.ey in an attempt to defend the Claim Petltion on causation and
work-relatedness. Dr. snyder's testimony to the ettect that hia
examination revealed that he could not oonulud., with certainty,
that the Claimant's asthmatic oondition wile caullId.by exposure to
ohemicals at tho worklilJht, Wall viewsd by the jUdqe aa rauonable
to cont9f1t the pet! t!on.
We agree.
We shall therefore deny
Claimant's appeal on theBe qrounds.
dl CUflefuUf - castllel. iIV(jllillJl..~ 5uplull1lHH ;14. 11lIlOi'" .....1:....
el AMC aide City CInema. Cil:,lllr'f. iJvallal)lf. October 1. 1990
at $11. 50 pc r IlOu r .
16. Tile positions ldentific(j In Finding of Fact 15 (lre all found
wltllln lIall's retained pllYslcal c,wacllY and llvallable when
offered. However. In r,caSOI1S detailed l)elow, tile positions are
deemed outside of Claimant's existing e(lucatlonal capacity.
17. The testimony of Beatrice Ross on the Claimant's ability to
read and wrIte as well as Hall '5 testimony In this area Is fullY
credible. T le Claimant Is found, tllerefore, unable to read or
write the English language.
18. Hall's testimony of responding to all positions ldentlfl~d
In FInding of Fact 15 Is fullY credible. The Claimant s
responsel therefore, to tile vocatlonal effort of WGH rises to
the leve of good faith.
19. In presentation of the Claim Petition, counsel for Claimant
incurred the following reasonable, related, and necessary
Itlgatlon expenses.
a) Commonwealth Reporting Co" transcript 2/24/92
bl Knlpes, Cohen & Associates for the deposition of
Nancy Laney
cl Dr. Jack W. Snyder for medical evaluation,
review, and testimony
dl Hosplt~1 correspondence copiers for Giuffre,
med I ca I records
e) Record COpy Services for records of Dr. Malamud
f) Foster Court Reporting serVice, Inc. for
DeDostlon of William McKenz e
g) Foster Court Reporting Service, Inc. for
Deposition of Dr. Snyder
hI Medical CODY Services for records of
Dr. Casey
I) Record COpy Services for records of Dr, Kessler
./,
( .
rx((,6(T
jJ / (
lleal of ,h. 11'1',","'111
IIf I..bor ,",1 IlIIhulI't
_..~~.!~~~".
$73,90
72 ,75
2,000.00
24,20
82.45
82.95
485.85
32,07
66.25
J ) MeOI eill l.UIlY ~)l~1 v I t,l:,.j II'. nUl Illlll-' ..,-.' .."""'t-'. .....
kl Medical COpy Servlc('~, ((II rei r r rJr. of Warl111n5ter
,. J "
Hospital ,1.14
1 ) Medical COpy Services f 01 1II('(j 1 (a I records of
St. JOSCpll' 5 Hospl tal 11.55
111) COIIVllonwealtl1 Reponing Culll[lalW fur l1earlng
testllllony 12/08/88
n) Foster Court Reporting Service for Deposition
of Dr, Tedaldl
0) Medical COpy Services for records of Dr, Tedaldl
p) Record COpy Services for records of Warmlnster.
Dr, Weisman and Dr, Casey
Q) Record COpy Services for records of Dr, Topkas
rl Foster Court Reportlny Service, Inc. for
Deposition of Beatrice Ross
s) Knlpes-Cohen Associates for deposition of
Nancy Laney
t) Knlpes Cohen Reportlny Company for Deposition
of Michael Casey
u) Subpoena for Beatrice Ross
v) Subpoena for Warmlnster Hospital
w) Subpoena for Warmlnster Hospital
and Phlco 30,00
20, The C I a~mant has a fee 8yreement with he r counse I, John
McElvenny, squire, for twenty percent (20%) of all benefits
received un er the Act.
!leal of Ihe Utpanm'llI
of L.bor allll 111111101 r)
89,90
281. 45
88,61
325.60
149,25
67,85
47.65
170.10
25.00
15.00
. .
rllUI. .u
~OKC~US.lQNSQ[.t~
1. All parties are governed llY provlslon~, of the PennsylvanIa
Workmen 5 (oll1pensntl on Art. as LJmel1C!eu,
2, Juanita Hilll Ila5 met 11('1 [Jurden of proving tl18t slle
sustained a work-relilted Injury un July 20, 1~84 IJrecludln~
return to Iler prior occupation fur Warmlnster Genera Hospital
beginning on July 21. 1984,
3. JuanIta Hall Is entitled to compensation benefits of
$185.60 Der week for temporary total dlsablll ty from JulY 21,
1984 to continue until and unless altered pursuant to the Act.
4. Warmlnster General Hospital sl1611 pay all litigation bills
Incurred as detailed In Finding of Fact 19.
5, All Interest due on this award ll.~ under Section
435(d) (III) of the Act,
6. The contest of thIs matter was reasonable,
QBnEB
AND NOW, TO WIT. this 28th day of October, 1992, the Claim
Petition of Juanita Hall Is GRANTED.
Warmlnster General Hospital shall remit wltMl)t Intere$t
t~mporary total we~kly IndemnIty benefits of $185160 from JUI~
21, 1984 and all II tlgatlon expenses delineated n Finding of
Fact 19.
Exh/6J
6 -(
:leal 01 the I)epattment
of LalJllr and Ind,,".ry
I
___~'-~"~_/lt4", '1.. 'f l...J._
1_ 1
Saudra J. N.al
~',.':\,:!."jI,~..,
,,-.rlll', i'T,;t~~\;':",'f'".: J'
,"