 |
 |
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
3(a), not Section 315, applied to Claimant's petition. As required by Section 413(a) of the Act, Claimant's petitions were filed "within three years after the date of the most recent payment of compensation made prior to the filing of such petition." 77 P.S. ยง772. They were, therefore, timely, and a review petition was the proper filing for considering the issue of whether Claimant's physical injuries had additional, psychological consequences.
Next, Employer argues that even if Claimant was able to seek an amendment to his NCP by filing a review petition pursuant to Section 413(a) of the Act, he failed to meet his burden of proof for such an amendment. Again, we disagree.
Section 413(a) of the Act requires the moving party to prove that a disability has "increased," and to prove the causal relationship between the original injury and the amending disability. Claimant had the burden of establishing the causal relationship between the work-related injury and his psychiatric disability by unequivocal medical testimony. Carnegie Mellon University v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Lenz), 645 A.2d 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). This causal connection may be shown to arise from medical treatment for the physical injury. Brockway v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Collins), 792 A.2d 631 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
Here, Claimant met his burden of proving that his disabilities had increased and that those disabilities were caused by the work-related injury noted on the NCP. The WCJ credited the testimony of Claimant's medical expert, Dr. Sheridan, on Claimant's psychological condition and sexual dysfunction, and he rejected the opinion of Employer's witness, Dr. Burstein. This is the province of the factfinder. Cittrich v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Laurel Living Center), 688 A.2d 1258 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). In short, the WCJ's findings are supported by the record, and the Board did not err in affirming the WCJ in this regard.
Employer claims, however, that the testimony of Dr. Sheridan was incompetent, and, therefore, the WCJ's finding that Claimant's depression, sexual dysfunction and chronic pain disorder were causally related to Claimant's work-related injury is not supported by substantial evidence. Employer claims that Dr. Sheridan acted as an advocate for Claimant, which Employer believes to be an impermissible deviation from his role as an expert witness. In any case, Employer asserts that Dr. Sheridan, a psychologist, is incompetent to establish the medical diagnosis of sexual dysfunction and chronic pain disorder.
The WCJ found that Claimant's sexual dysfunction was not related to the organic problems caused by the original work injury but, rather, was due to the pain caused by that injury. This finding is based upon all the medical testimony, as a whole, specifically that of Claimant's treating medical doctors. Dr. Sheridan's testimony was based partially upon the report of Dr. Snyder, the psychologist at the pain clinic who initially evaluated Claimant for insertion of the morphine pump, and subsequently treated him for depression and chronic pain. An expert may express an opinion based, in part, upon the reports of others upon which the expert customarily relies in his profession. Pistella v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Samson Buick Body Shop), 633 A.2d 230 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
Employer's objection goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its competency. Kocher v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (B.G. Coon Construction Co.), 415 A.2d 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). As noted, the authority of the WCJ over questions of credibility, conflicting medical evidence, and evidentiary weight is unquestioned. Sherrod v. Workmen's Compensa
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.
|
|