A Bucks County Workers’ Compensation Judge recently considered the merits of a Review Petition and a Termination Petition.  At issue was whether a union iron worker’s description of injury should have been expanded and whether he had fully recovered from his work-related condition.  The Judge ruled in favor of the employer on both petitions.  Employer and their carrier were represented by Joseph Frattone, Esq., a partner in the firm's Philadelphia office. 

On June 23, 2021, the claimant sprained his left knee while at work.  As a result, the claim was accepted, and he began to receive wage loss and medical benefits.  In January 2022, the claimant attended an Independent Medical Evaluation.  The IME doctor concluded that the claimant had made a full recovery from the work injury, so Attorney Frattone filed a Termination Petition.  Shortly thereafter, the claimant’s attorney filed a Review Petition alleging that her client’s injury was more extensive than a knee sprain.  The parties fully litigated the matter, after which the Judge issued the favorable defense ruling.

In his Decision, the WC Judge provided a detailed summary of the evidence.  He agreed with the IME doctor that the work injury consisted of a left knee strain and bone bruise that had resolved as of January 28, 2022.  The Judge noted that this was consistent with the claimant’s return to full duty work in September 2022.  Moreover, the Judge found that the injury did not include chondromalacia or other injuries to the cartilage which the claimant had alleged.  Most important, however, were the concessions elicited from the claimant’s doctor during Attorney Frattone’s cross examination.  Attorney Frattone asked the doctor about the claimant’s pre‑injury activities because the claimant admitted to being an avid runner.  This was significant because runners have a higher rate of chondromalacia than do non‑runners.  The doctor (a respected orthopedist at a very well-known practice in Philadelphia), had no idea his client engaged in such activity.  This was despite the fact that he was the treating physician and had met with his client multiple times over the course of the claim.  However, cross examination revealed numerous other examples of the doctor’s lack of knowledge about the case.  Indeed, the Judge found the doctor’s testimony "unpersuasive" and described his understanding of the facts as "shallow."

Citing Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent, Attorney Frattone argued that the expert’s testimony was not legally competent or adequate because the doctor’s opinion regarding causation was based primarily on the temporal proximity between the discovery of the chondral defect and the work injury.  The Judge agreed.  Moreover, the Judge referred to specific instances of the doctor having scant knowledge of the case such as not knowing whether the claimant had been released to full duty (despite the fact that he was the one who authored the release), his ignorance about the physical nature of his patient’s job, and the fact that he was unsure if he had even prescribed medication for the patient.  These were just a few of the examples the Judge noted in his Decision regarding the doctor’s lack of preparation.

The termination of benefits was unusual insofar as the claimant had voluntarily returned to work in his full duty capacity while the case was being litigated.  Judges will often give such claimants the benefit of the doubt that they have not made a full recovery because the voluntary return shows initiative and effort.  Indeed, the Judge remarked that he was favorably impressed by the voluntary return to work.  However, it was the strength of the defense medical testimony and the admissions during the claimant’s expert’s testimony that ultimately led the Judge to rule in favor of Attorney Frattone’s client.  This Decision came after the claimant had demanded more than $100,000 to resolve the claim.  Instead of making a large payment to the claimant, the employer is now in position to make a sizable recovery from the Supersedeas Fund. 

If you have any questions about this case or any other workers’ compensation matter, please contact Joseph Frattone, Esq. at jfrattone@c-wlaw.com or (610) 567-0700.