 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board11/17/2003
ent and prescription for fitness equipment, as well as a cost projection report on the use of the home gym equipment were entered into evidence.
In response, Employer offered the deposition testimony of Dr. DiMauro, Paul S. Lieber, M.D., and Stuart S. Burstein, M.D. Dr. DiMauro began treating Claimant on August 18, 1997 for chronic pain related to his work injury . Dr. Burstein opined that Claimant did not suffer any psychological problems or sexual dysfunction as a result of his work injuries and that Claimant exaggerated the extent of his pain.
On April 5, 2001, the WCJ circulated a decision that denied Claimant's petition for penalties. It granted in part, and denied in part, Claimant's first review petition, and it granted Claimant's second review petition. The WCJ concluded that Claimant met his burden of establishing that the exercise equipment was prescribed for treatment of Claimant's work injury ; that his sexual dysfunction, chronic pain and depression were related to his work injury; and that treatment rendered by Dr. Sheridan was related to Claimant's work injury. The WCJ did not credit Dr. Burstein's opinion. The WCJ credited the testimony of Dr. Lieber, Employer's witness, who observed no signs of symptom magnification.
Accordingly, the WCJ ordered that the NCP for the 1992 injury be amended to include sexual dysfunction, chronic pain disorder, and depression. The WCJ ordered Employer to pay a bill of $4,560 for treatment rendered to Claimant by Dr. Sheridan, and to reimburse Claimant $927.33 for two-thirds of the cost of the exercise equipment. Employer appealed to the Board. The Board remanded to the WCJ to give Claimant the opportunity to submit Dr. Sheridan's medical bills on the forms mandated by Act 44; it affirmed the decision of the WCJ in all other respects. Employer then petitioned for this Court's review.
On appeal, Employer raises four issues. It asserts that the Board erred as a matter of law by allowing Claimant to pursue his claim in a review petition as opposed to a claim petition. Second, the Board erred because the record does not support an amendment to the NCP. Third, the Board erred in requiring Employer to pay for gym equipment. Fourth, the Board erred in remanding the case to allow Claimant to submit claims on the correct forms. We consider these claims seriatim.
The first question is whether the WCJ had authority to modify Claimant's NCP pursuant to Section 413(a) of the Act, 77 P.S. ยงยง771-772. Employer asserts that Claimant's review petition under Section 413(a) never should have been allowed. It argues that Claimant's psychological and sexual dysfunction injuries were not the natural consequence of the accepted injuries of "internal injuries and knee strain," and, therefore, Claimant should have filed a claim petition under Section 315 of the Act. Further, Employer argues that it did not get notice of Claimant's injury within 120 days of its occurrence as required under Section 311 of the Act, and Claimant did not satisfy the three-year statute of limitations in Section 315 of the Act. Since Claimant's petition was filed on February 7, 2001, almost nine years after his injury on August 5, 1992, Employer asserts that it is untimely. Employer contends that a reversal of the Board is compelled by this Court's decision in Jeanes Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Hass), 819 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). We disagree.
In Jeanes Hospital, this Court found that when seeking compensation benefits for disabilities that are related to, but distinct from, an injury described in an NCP, a claimant must file a claim petition, not a review petition. In that case, the claimant's fibromyalgia and pain diso
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|