C. Anderson v. WCAB (Curry Construction, Inc.) (Majority Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Chris Anderson, Petitioner v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Curry Construction, Inc.), Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : No. 1762 C.D. 2007 SUBMITTED: December 21, 2007 HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: April 17, 2008 Chris Anderson (Claimant) petitions for review of the order of the Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which sustained the decision of the Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) to grant the Termination Petition of Curry Construction, Inc. (Employer), and deny the Review Petition of Claimant. We affirm. Claimant was employed as a laborer with Employer when on March 12, 2004, he fell in a hole on the second floor of a building descending partly through to the floor below and sustaining a pre-tibial laceration and contusion of his right leg. Following the accident, Claimant was taken to the emergency room, treated for the laceration on his right shin and released. Claimant had an MRI of his right knee on March 31, 2004, which showed a partial tear of his patella tendon but no fractures or bone marrow changes. Claimant began receiving benefits at the rate of $345.00 per week.1 Claimant then treated with Dr. Frederick at The Rothman Institute where he was last seen on May 5, 2004. Dr. Frederick declared Claimant s injuries clinically healed. Claimant had no surgery, no physical therapy, and no additional treatment.2 On March 29, 2005, Employer filed a Termination Petition alleging that Claimant had fully recovered from his workrelated injury as of March 8, 2005. Claimant filed an answer denying Employer s allegations and, in turn, filed a Petition to Review Compensation Benefits, alleging that he remained disabled from his pre-injury job and that the Notice of Compensation Payable should be amended to include the following: 1) partial tear of patella tendon; 2) post traumatic alta with chondromalacia patella and a retiracular chondral blister; and 3) lateral collateral ligament sprain and injury to the medial meniscus. Employer filed an answer denying the averments of Claimant s petition and the petitions were consolidated for a hearing before the WCJ on March 13, 2006. In support of its petition to terminate benefits, Employer offered the deposition testimony of Kevin A. Mansmann, a Board-certified orthopedic 1 Although we find references to a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) on both Claimant s Answer to Employer s Petition to Terminate Compensation Benefits and his own Petition to Review Compensation Benefits, our review here is hampered by the fact that the NCP was not certified to this Court as part of the record. Therefore, we rely on the WCJ s finding that the injury was described as a pre-tibial laceration and a contusion of the right leg. Finding of Fact No. 2, Certified Record (C.R.) at 17. 2 Claimant did not keep scheduled appointments with Dr. Frederick on June 9th or July 14, 2004. With the exception of his IME examination by Dr. Mansmann on February 16, 2005, Claimant was not seen or treated by another physician for almost 13 months, until he began seeing Dr. Lieberman on June 1, 2005. Deposition of Dr. Lieberman, 1/12/06, at 50, 51. 2 surgeon. Dr. Mansmann saw Claimant on February 16, 2005, at which time he obtained a history from Claimant regarding the March 12, 2004 work-injury, reviewed several medical reports, and conducted a physical examination of Claimant. Dr. Mansmann testified that his physical examination of Claimant s right knee was normal except for a well-healed laceration along Claimant s right shin bone. Specifically, Dr. Mansmann testified that: [Claimant] is a 24-year-old, mildly obese. Had a right guarding gait. He guarded his right leg. He squatted to 110 degrees only on the right . . . He had a negative patella femoral crepitus of the right knee. He had a negative ligamentous laxity, negative effusion. He had a five-inch laceration of his right leg below the tibial tubercle that was well healed. He had no swelling of the knee or leg area. His motor exam was 5 of 5. His thigh girths were equal at 23 inches. His knee girths were equal at 18 inches. His sensation was intact. He did indicate tenderness in the anterior right knee diffusely. Deposition of Dr. Mansmann, 6/30/05, at 11-12. Dr. Mansmann also reviewed Claimant s medical records and reports from Dr. Frederick and Dr. Lieberman, as well as two MRI reports, dated March 31, 2004, and June 8, 2005. After reviewing all of the above, Dr. Mansmann stated that he believed within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Claimant had fully recovered from the work-related injury and that the possible chondral blister was not causally related to the original workrelated injury. Dr. Mansmann released Claimant to full duty work. Deposition of Dr. Mansmann, 11/17/05, at 42, 53, 56, 60. In opposition to Employer s termination petition and in support of his own review petition, Claimant testified on his own behalf. Claimant testified that when he fell in the hole at work on March 12, 2004, he hit and lacerated his shin 3 and banged [his] knee up. Hearing 3/13/06, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), at 6. His job duties required him to do a lot of heavy lifting and a lot of stair climbing. Id. at 7. As to the current problems he has with his right knee, Claimant testified that his knee gives out on him, he has constant throbbing pain, and he has problems sleeping because he can t get comfortable. Id. He further testified that he can no longer do his pre-injury job because he cannot kneel or lift and that he cannot play sports or run or even walk his dogs. Id. at 11, 23. Claimant testified that he doesn t do a whole lot, and that all he does is [s]it around and watch TV. Id. at 23. Claimant acknowledged that he was told by Dr. Frederick that his knee was clinically healed at his last-kept appointment with Dr. Frederick on May 5, 2004. Id. at 22. Claimant further admitted that after that point in time, he did not seek any medical treatment for thirteen months, he had no prescription drugs, and no physical therapy. Id. at 21, 25, 26. Dr. Frederick Lieberman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, examined Claimant on June 1, 2005, and testified on his behalf. Dr. Lieberman testified that Claimant s current complaints were that his right knee gives way, he has constant pain in his knee and that the pain ranges from dull to sharp, the pain increases with walking, and finally, that Claimant told him that he believes he has a partial patellar tendon tear. Lieberman Deposition, 1/12/06, at15, 16. Dr. Lieberman noted laxity about the patella area and some collateral ligamentous laxity as well. There was tenderness about the anterior joint and the medial meniscus of Claimant s right knee and there was a one centimeter difference between his right thigh and his left thigh and a two centimeter difference between his right and left calves. Dr. Lieberman explained that the smaller measurements on Claimant s right or injured side showed that there was atrophy due to lack of 4 weight bearing on the right side. Id. at 19, 20. Dr. Lieberman stated that he attributed Claimant s patella alta, chondromalacia patella and the chondral blister to his work injury sustained on March 12, 2004. Id. at 24, 25. Dr. Lieberman opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Claimant had not fully recovered from his March 12, 2004 work injury. With respect to Dr. Mansmann s opinion that there was no causal connection between Claimant s possible chondral injuries and the work injury, Dr. Lieberman testified that he disagreed with Dr. Mansmann, who did not appreciate the mechanism of injury. Id. at 45. After review of the evidence of record, the WCJ concluded that Claimant had fully recovered from his work injury and granted Employer s termination petition. The WCJ also concluded that Claimant had not proven that he had any additional injuries other than those described in the NCP and therefore denied Claimant s Petition for Review. In reaching these conclusions, the WCJ accepted as credible and persuasive the testimony of Dr. Mansmann. The WCJ rejected as not credible the testimony of both Claimant and Dr. Lieberman. The Board affirmed and the present appeal followed. Claimant s first three issues on appeal are addressed to the testimony of Employer s medical witness, Dr. Mansmann. Claimant argues that, contrary to the Board s conclusion, his appeal does not constitute an improper challenge either to the WCJ s credibility determinations or his determinations as to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Instead, Claimant argues that because Dr. Mansmann testified that arthroscopic surgery to Claimant s right knee would be reasonable to diagnose a possible chondral blister, thereby acknowledging that Claimant has continuing symptoms in his right knee, his testimony is therefore equivocal on the issue of Claimant s full recovery. In this regard, Claimant argues that Dr. 5 Mansmann s testimony is blatantly incompetent to support a termination of benefits. Our Supreme Court had defined the applicable legal standard in a termination proceeding as follows: the employer bears the burden of proof in a termination proceeding to establish that the work injury has ceased. In a case where the claimant complains of continued pain, this burden is met when an employer s medical expert unequivocally testifies that it is his opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the claimant is fully recovered, can return to work without restrictions and that there are no objective medical findings which either substantiate the claims of pain or connect them to the work injury. If the WCJ credits this testimony, the termination of benefits is proper. Udvari v. Workmen s Comp. Appeal Bd. (USAIR Inc.), 550 Pa. 319, 327, 705 A.2d 1290, 1293 (1997)(footnote omitted). It is well-settled that it is the role of the WCJ to assess the credibility of the witnesses and resolve any conflicts in the evidence. Hoffmaster v. Workers Comp. Appeal Bd. (Senco Products, Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). However, a question as to the competency of the evidence is one of law and subject to our plenary review. Cramer v. Workmen s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Uni-Marts & PMA Group), 627 A.2d 231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). Competency when applied to medical evidence, is merely a question of whether the witnesses opinion is sufficiently definite and unequivocal to render it admissible. Id., 627 A.2d at 233. Moreover, as we observed in Cerro Metal Products Co. and Engle-Hambright & Davies, Inc. v. Workers Comp. Appeal Bd. (Plewa), 855 A.2d 932, 937 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)(citation omitted): [w]e have often observed that medical evidence is unequivocal as long as the medical expert, after 6 providing a foundation, testifies that in his professional opinion he believes or thinks the facts exist. . . . Even if the witness admits to uncertainty, reservation, doubt or lack of information with respect to scientific or medical details, as long as the witness does not recant the opinion first expressed, the evidence i[s] unequivocal. While Claimant is correct in his assertion that Dr. Mansmann agreed arthroscopy was reasonable, we disagree that this statement, taken out of context, supports his argument that Dr. Mansmann s testimony was incompetent. On cross examination, when asked whether in his opinion, the chondral blister was related to Claimant s work injury, Dr. Mansmann testified that: A. I feel comfortable in saying that it s not related to the work injury because of the MRI from 3-31-04 that showed no sign of trauma to the subchondral tissues that would be the precipitative cause of blistering. Q. There could be other causes to the blistering; can t there? A. Yeah. There can be other causes. Q. If there s instability as a result of a trauma, can t that cause some sort of deficit or defect to the chondral malacia area? A. It could cause chondromalacia, but blistering is an edema in -- within the chondral tissue that s due to a swelling deep to that that causes that. And that is -- the animal model is direct blunt trauma to that to the knee cap, causes blistering and cartilage arthritis, arthritic changes. Q. That s exactly the trauma that he sustained here; correct? A. He [Claimant] sustained a laceration of his patellar tendon, and he -- but then the [3-31-04] MRI 7 showed no bruising of the subchondral bone. That s the missing link. Q. We can also assume that he at least sustained some blunt trauma given the mechanism of the accident in this case; can t we? A. Some, yes. Q. Therefore, Doctor, are you suggesting that he had some sort of intervening blunt trauma after this work accident that caused this since it s mostly caused by blunt trauma? Is that what your testimony is? A. That or he doesn t really have a blister there. Deposition of Dr. Mansmann, 11/17/05, at 53-54. As he explained at his first deposition, a chondral blister is on the undersurface of the kneecap where the kneecap forms the joint with the thigh bone and glides along the thigh bone, . . . [a]nd you can create blisters by direct impact on the knee. Mansmann Deposition, 6/30/05, at 20. Dr. Mansmann also explained that MRIs were not very precise for defining chondral lesions, and that that s probably the weakest utilization of the MRI. 3 Id., at 16. Dr. Mansmann then went on to state that, [a]rthroscopy would be the tool, the diagnostic test or procedure that would confirm it and then be used for treatment of it. Id. However, Dr. Mansmann then stated that while arthroscopic surgery would be reasonable to diagnose a chondral blister, he qualified this statement by 3 Several times throughout his depositions, Dr. Mansmann emphasized that MRI s were not the proper tool for diagnosing a chondral blister, meaning Claimant might not even have one at all, even stating at one point that, my opinion, due to the lack of bruising or bony marrow changes on MRI that would have been present with a significant enough injury to cause chondral blistering, that I would not relate it to the injury of 3-12-04, if there is truly blistering there at this time. Mansmann Deposition, 11/17/05, at 42 (emphasis added). 8 explaining that it would be reasonable for the Claimant, if he s had consistent, persistent pain and had continued medical records documenting that through the course . . . . Mansmann Deposition, 11/17/05, at 55-56 (emphasis supplied). Clearly, Dr. Mansmann found it significant that Claimant did not seek medical treatment for more than a year, which, coupled with the lack of objective findings after examining Claimant, led him to conclude that Claimant had fully recovered and that Claimant did not sustain a chondral injury or a chondral blister as a result of the March 12, 2004 work injury. Accordingly, we conclude that Dr. Mansmann s testimony was competent in this regard. Next, Claimant argues that Dr. Mansmann s testimony was incompetent because he admitted that Claimant had chondromalacia in his right knee and that it was related to the original work injury. Claimant argues that because Dr. Mansmann conceded the possibility that Claimant s chondromalacia could have been caused by the work injury, Employer failed to meet its burden of proving that Claimant s current disability was unrelated to the work injury, citing Jones v. Workers Comp. Appeal Bd.(J.C. Penney Co.), 747 A.2d 430 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). Although there are similarities in the facts, we disagree that Jones is dispositive of this issue. In Jones, the claimant fell and injured her knee at work, which employer recognized pursuant to an NCP. At the termination hearing, employer s medical witness, Dr. Bushkoff testified that claimant sustained a medial meniscus tear as a result of her fall at work and diagnosed her as status post-partial medial meniscectomy, work-related and chondromalacia of the patella and medial femoral compartment, not work-related. 747 A.2d 430 (footnote omitted). However, on cross-examination, Dr. Bushkoff testified that it was possible that the 9 patellofemoral chondromalacia that he diagnosed in 1996, could have been caused by the trauma claimant suffered at work in 1994. In addition, Dr. Bushkoff placed claimant on restrictions to accommodate the chondromalacia, and further, he opined that her complaints of pain at the time of his examination of her were attributable to the chondromalacia. Moreover, the court noted that Dr. Bushkoff did not specifically opine that claimant had fully recovered from her medial meniscus tear . . . . Id. at 431. The court concluded that Dr. Bushkoff s testimony was insufficient to meet employer s burden of proof because the evidence demonstrates that there is a possibility that claimant s work-related injury caused her patellar chondromalacia and aggravated the pre-existing chondromalacia. Id. at 432. In the present matter, however, a careful review of Dr. Mansmann s entire testimony makes clear that at no time did he recant his medical opinion on the issue of Claimant s full recovery. In addition, Dr. Mansmann gave very precise and, in the WCJ s words, eminently logical explanations for his conclusions as to why the current cartilage injuries to Claimant s right knee were not causally connected to the original work related injury as noted in the NCP. Specifically, Dr. Mansmann testified that because cartilage is so thin, it is very difficult to diagnose with accuracy any injuries to the cartilage using an MRI. Mansmann Deposition, 11/17/05, at 40. However, MRI s have a higher precision rate of showing any changes to the bone marrow, and therefore, these changes would have been readily apparent on the first MRI study done after the Claimant s original work accident in March. Because the March 31, 2004 MRI report showed that the bone marrow signal was normal, menisci was normal and there were no fractures, Dr. Mansmann 10 opined that there was no causal connection between Claimant s cartilage injury and the original injury as described on the NCP. Id. at 41-42. While conceding that the chondromalacia could have been caused by the trauma associated here, Dr. Mansmann also stated that [i]t could also be a natural occurrence. Mansmann Deposition, 11/17/05, at 61. Dr. Mansmann reiterated his opinion that based on his physical examination of Claimant, Claimant had fully recovered from his March 12, 2004 work injury. Id. at 56. Furthermore, Dr. Mansmann stated that there was nothing in Dr. Lieberman s reports that would cause him to question his opinion that Claimant had fully recovered from his work injury. Id. at 60. Expert medical testimony which merely states the injury or condition might have or possibly came from the assigned cause, or is less than positive or which is based upon possibilities may not constitute legally competent evidence for the purpose of establishing the causal relationship. Lewis v. Workmen s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Pittsburgh Bd. of Education), 508 Pa. 360, 365-66, 498 A.2d 800, 802 (1985) (citations omitted). Having reviewed Dr. Mansmann s testimony in its entirety, we conclude that it was sufficient to meet Employer s burden of proof. Claimant also argues that Dr. Mansmann agreed that Claimant suffered other injuries to his right knee in addition to that which was recognized by Employer in the NCP and that these other injuries were related to the original work injury. Therefore, according to Claimant, Dr. Mansmann s testimony was incompetent as a matter of law on the issue of Claimant s full recovery. We disagree. As stated above, we have carefully reviewed Dr. Mansmann s entire testimony and conclude that it was his opinion, within a reasonable degree of 11 medical certainty, that Claimant had fully recovered from his work-related injury and that any subsequent injuries to his knee were not related to the work injury. Claimant further argues that Dr. Mansmann s testimony is equivocal because he testified that he was only 85% certain that the chondral blister was not related to the work injury and 85% certainty does not amount to unequivocal testimony. We disagree. As correctly noted by Employer, the medical witness need not utter certain magic words in order to be considered unequivocal. See, e.g., Williams v. Workmen s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Montgomery Ward), 562 A.2d 437, 440 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). Even if the expert is uncertain or lacks information regarding medical details, the testimony will be unequivocal as long as the expert expresses a professional belief that the fact exists. Shaffer v. Workmen s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Weis Markets), 667 A.2d 243, 245-46 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). In determining whether the employer has met its burden of proof, the expert s testimony must be reviewed in its entirety and if accepted by the WCJ, the termination of benefits is proper. Udvari, 550 Pa. at 327, 705 A.2d at 1293. The record reveals that it was Dr. Mansmann s opinion that because the MRI showed no evidence of bone marrow changes and no reference to any type of cartilage injury, Claimant s subsequent knee injuries were not related to the work injury. Dr. Mansmann also opined that based on the lack of objective findings to substantiate Claimant s subjective complaints of pain, Claimant was fully recovered from his work injury. Applying the standards set forth above, we conclude that Dr. Mansmann s testimony was unequivocal and that it was sufficient to meet Employer s burden. Claimant next argues that the WCJ has failed to issue a reasoned decision pursuant to Section 422(a) of the Workers Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 12 834. First, Claimant asserts that the WCJ ignored the uncontroverted evidence from both medical experts that Claimant has continuing work related injuries as well as additional injuries to those that were accepted in the NCP. Second, Claimant contends that the WCJ did not resolve the conflicts within Dr. Mansmann s testimony nor did he specify which part or parts of either testimony he was accepting or rejecting. Therefore, according to Claimant, the WCJ failed to follow the statute s proscription that [u]ncontroverted evidence may not be rejected for no reason or for an irrational reason; and he also failed to adequately explain the reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent evidence. We find this argument to be without merit. A reasoned decision is one that allows for adequate review by the Board without further elucidation and when it permits adequate review by the appellate courts under their applicable standards of review. Higgins v. Workers Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Philadelphia), 854 A.2d 1002, 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Contrary to Claimant s assertions, Dr. Mansmann did not agree nor did he opine that Claimant was still disabled or that he had additional injuries. In fact, as quoted above, Dr. Mansmann stated that based on my examination of him [Claimant], my opinion is the same [that Claimant has fully recovered from his work injury]. Mansmann Deposition, 11/17/05, at 56. With respect to the additional injuries to his knee that Claimant was seeking to add to the NCP, Dr. Mansmann felt comfortable in saying that it s not related to the work injury because of the MRI from 3-31-04 that showed no sign of trauma to the subchondral tissues that would be the precipitative cause of blistering. Id. at 53. Dr. Mansmann also testified that patella alta which he defined as a patella that s 13 high tracks higher in the knee than normal, was a developmental congenital phenomenon. Id. at 59-60. In contrast, Dr. Lieberman testified that he diagnosed Claimant as having anterior infrapatellar contusion, a laceration, a partial patellar tendon tear, a medial extensor retinacular disruption, a patella alta (secondary to the trauma causing the partial patellar tendon tear) . . . [a] chondromalacia patella and medial facet chondral blister of the patella. He also has sustained a lateral collateral ligament sprain. Lieberman Deposition, 1/12/06, at 37. Further, it was his opinion, that these injuries were caused by the accident at work on March 12, 2004. Id. The WCJ then made the following findings of fact: 11. Mansmann s testimony is accepted as credible and persuasive, given his experience and qualifications, the consistency of his testimony and his explanation of the significance of the MRI results. His testimony seems eminently logical. 12. I cannot accept the testimony of Dr. Lieberman in any respect. In the first place, he did not see Mr. Anderson until fifteen months after the injury. It is difficult to conceive how claimant could have functioned in the year s interim without medical treatment when [Dr.] Lieberman testified that surgery was advisable. Neither [Dr.] Lieberman s explanation nor the claimant s, such as they are, are convincing. In addition, [Dr.] Lieberman s testimony is not consistent with the nearly normal MRIs. The first MRI findings do not support his later assertions of severe injury. WCJ s Decision, 1/4/07, at 2-3. It is abundantly clear from these findings that the WCJ carefully considered the evidence, determined that Dr. Mansmann s testimony was both credible and competent, and gave a more than adequate and reasoned explanation for doing so. 14 Claimant s contention that the WCJ did not resolve the conflicts within Dr. Mansmann s testimony merely because the WCJ did not indicate which part of Dr. Mansmann s testimony he was accepting or rejecting, is similarly meritless. The WCJ considered both of Dr. Mansmann s depositions in making his decision. Specifically, in Finding of Fact 7, the WCJ stated: Mansmann further testified that he reviewed an MRI of the right knee done on 8 June 2005 (after claimant had resumed medical treatment) and that the MRI suggested the presence of a chondrial [sic] blister on the posterior of the right kneecap. This would have required an impact of some kind on the bone. The bone would then swell and blister. However, an MRI of 31 March 2004, less than three weeks post injury, was significant for showing no blistering, no swelling of bone tissue in the kneecap. Had there been any bone bruises, any chondrial [sic] blister or swelling from an injury at the beginning of March, it would have been apparent in an MRI at the end of March. The lack of bony trauma on the 31st convinced Mansmann that there was no such injury prior to that time. He expressed his opinion that Mr. Anderson had fully recovered from the work injury and was in need of no additional medical treatment. He released claimant to full duty work without restrictions. He reiterated that there were no positive objective signs of continuing disability. Decision of WCJ, 1/4/07, at 1. The record shows that when he was deposed on June 30, 2005, Dr. Mansmann had only seen the second MRI study of Claimant s knee dated June 8, 2005. Consequently, Dr. Mansmann was deposed again on November 17, 2005, after he had a chance to review the first MRI of March 31, 2004, as well as other reports. The WCJ reviewed both of Dr. Mansmann s depositions, which considered together do not present conflicting testimony. 15 Claimant next argues that the WCJ erred when he 1) failed to award unreasonable contest counsel fees; and 2) when he failed to award litigation costs to Claimant s attorney. Counsel fees may be awarded to a successful claimant against an employer under Section 440, 77 P.S. § 996, unless the employer meets it burden of proving that it had a reasonable basis for the contest. Hayduk v. Workers Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bemis Co., Inc.), 906 A.2d 622 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). The WCJ found that Employer presented a reasonable contest in both . . . petitions. Decision of WCJ, 1/4/07, Finding of Fact No. 15, at 3. Finally, [i]n order for a claimant to be awarded litigation costs, the claimant must prevail on the particular issue or petition for which he seeks costs. Hayduk, 906 A.2d at 635 (citation omitted). As the Claimant did not succeed in this matter, both fees and costs were properly not awarded. The credible and persuasive testimony supports the finding that Claimant had fully recovered. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Lieberman in support of Claimant s review petition was not credited by the WCJ and in fact was rejected in all respects. Thus, the Board properly affirmed the termination of benefits and the WCJ s refusal to add to the injury description in the NCP. Accordingly, we affirm. _____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge 16 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Chris Anderson, Petitioner v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Curry Construction, Inc.), Respondent : : : : : : : : No. 1762 C.D. 2007 ORDER AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2008, the order of the Workers Compensation Appeal Board in the above captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED. _____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.