• Employer Met Its Burden of Proving Change of Condition in Second Termination Petition Proceeding by Presenting Evidence That There Was Lack of Objective Findings to Substantiate Claimant’s Continuing Complaints.
  • January 25, 2017 | Author: Francis X. Wickersham
  • Law Firm: Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C. - King Of Prussia Office
  • In his appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that the employer’s termination petition should not have been granted because the employer did not show a change in the claimant’s condition from a prior termination petition. Pointing out that a change exists if there is a lack of objective findings to substantiate continuing complaints, the court noted that the Workers’ Compensation Judge specifically found that the employer showed a change in condition, considering the claimant’s incredible testimony regarding his activities in relation to his shoulder pain, the lack of medical treatment since 2009, and the additional studies on his shoulder that were performed after the first IME and prior to the second IME. The court affirmed the decision to terminate the claimant’s benefits and sustained the zero percent penalty, holding that the amount of the penalty was within the Judge’s discretion.