L. Brantley v. WCAB (Brown's Shop Rite) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Lawrence Brantley,                     :
    Petitioner            :
    :
    v.                         :
    :
    Workers’ Compensation Appeal           :
    Board (Brown’s Shop Rite),             :   No. 452 C.D. 2018
    Respondent            :   Submitted: November 30, 2018
    Brown’s Super Stores,                  :
    Petitioner            :
    :
    v.                         :
    :
    Workers’ Compensation Appeal           :
    Board (Brantley),                      :   No. 491 C.D. 2018
    Respondent           :   Submitted: November 30, 2018
    BEFORE:     HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
    HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
    HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                    FILED: July 10, 2019
    Lawrence Brantley (Claimant) and Brown’s Super Stores (Employer)
    each petition for review of the March 20, 2018 order of the Workers’ Compensation
    Appeal Board (WCAB) affirming the January 13, 2017 decision of the Workers’
    Compensation Judge (WCJ) that granted, in part, Claimant’s Claim Petition and
    Penalty Petition and also granted Employer’s Termination Petition. Upon review,
    we affirm.
    Claimant worked for Employer as a loss prevention officer since
    August of 2014. WCJ Decision Finding of Fact (F.F.) 3a; Reproduced Record (R.R.)
    at 440. On July 29, 2015, in the course of his duties in Employer’s Parkside,
    Pennsylvania, store, Claimant wrestled with and apprehended an individual
    attempting to steal baby formula. During the melee, Claimant suffered injuries to
    his neck and his left shoulder, wrist, knee, leg, back, and hip. F.F. 3b; R.R. at 441.
    Claimant immediately reported the incident and his injuries to Employer. F.F. 3c;
    R.R. at 441. Claimant sought and received medical attention for his injuries on July
    30, 2015 and thereafter. F.F. 3c; R.R. at 441. A doctor put Claimant on light-duty
    work, and Claimant gave Employer the light-duty work note. R.R. at 41 & 468.
    However, because no light-duty job was available, Claimant returned to work in his
    full duty position, in which he experienced physical difficulty in fully performing
    the requirements of the position. F.F. 3d; R.R. at 47, 441 & 468.
    Employer fired Claimant on August 24, 2015 for failing to properly
    clock in on August 2, 2015. F.F. 3e; R.R. at 441.
    On September 30, 2015, Claimant filed a Claim Petition alleging that
    he had sustained an injury to his neck, left lower back, left lower extremity, left hip,
    and left wrist during the July 29, 2015 altercation with the shoplifter and seeking
    total disability benefits from August 25, 2015 onward. See Claim Petition, R.R. at
    1-5. On November 12, 2015, beyond the 20-day period for filing an answer,
    Employer filed an Answer to the Claim Petition. See Answer to Claim Petition, R.R.
    at 6-8. Later, on January 11, 2016, Employer filed an Amended Answer to the Claim
    Petition. See Amended Answer to Claim Petition, R.R. at 10-13. Both the Answer
    2
    to Claim Petition and the Amended Answer to Claim Petition denied that Claimant’s
    termination was prompted by the physical ramifications of his July 29, 2015 injury.
    See Answer to Claim Petition, R.R. at 6-7; Amended Answer to Claim Petition, R.R.
    at 11.
    Thereafter, Claimant filed a Penalty Petition on February 26, 2016,
    alleging a failure by Employer to issue required Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
    documents, to which Employer filed an Answer on March 1, 2016. See Penalty
    Petition, R.R. at 14-15; Answer to Penalty Petition, R.R. at 16-17.
    On May 6, 2016, Employer filed a Termination Petition alleging that,
    based on an Independent Medical Examination/Record Review (IME) conducted on
    March 23, 2016, Claimant had fully recovered from his July 29, 2015 work injury.
    See Termination Petition, R.R. at 18-20.             Claimant filed an Answer to the
    Termination Petition the same day denying the allegations.                  See Answer to
    Termination Petition, R.R. at 21-22.
    After conducting a hearing on the matter,1 the WCJ decided the Claim,
    Penalty, and Termination Petitions by decision issued on January 13, 2017. See WCJ
    Decision dated January 13, 2017 (WCJ Decision), R.R. at 438-50. The WCJ
    Decision granted the Claim Petition in part, awarding disability benefits from August
    25, 2015 through March 22, 2016, as well as all past and future reasonable and
    necessary injury-related medical expenses. See WCJ Decision at 13, Order; R.R. at
    450. The WCJ Decision also granted Employer’s Termination Petition as of March
    23, 2016, the date of the IME. 
    Id. Further, the
    WCJ Decision granted the Penalty
    1
    The hearing took place over a number of days. See R.R. at 23-118. Claimant testified at
    the December 10, 2015 hearing. See R.R. at 28-82.
    3
    Petition and awarded Claimant a 10% penalty against Employer on the amount
    awarded by the Claim Petition. 
    Id. The parties
    cross-appealed. See R.R. at 451-62. On March 20, 2018,
    the WCAB issued an opinion affirming the WCJ Decision. See WCAB Opinion
    dated March 20, 2018 (WCAB Opinion), R.R. at 463-73. Both parties petitioned
    this Court for review.2
    A. The Claim Petition
    First, Employer argues that the WCJ erred by awarding Claimant
    disability benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act3 (Act). See Employer’s
    Brief at 38-51. Employer argues that the evidence illustrated that Claimant was
    terminated on August 24, 2015 for a violation of company rules, not reasons related
    to Claimant’s July 29, 2015 work-related injury. 
    Id. Thus, Employer
    asserts that
    Claimant’s wage loss was not caused by his work injury, and therefore, the WCJ
    erred by granting the Claim Petition. We disagree.
    2
    In workers’ compensation appeals, this Court’s “scope of review is limited to determining
    whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law was committed and
    whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Morocho v. Workers’
    Comp. Appeal Bd. (Home Equity Renovations, Inc.), 
    167 A.3d 855
    , 858 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017)
    (citing Johnson v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dubois Courier Express), 
    631 A.2d 693
    (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 1993)).
    Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence a reasonable
    person might find sufficient to support the WCJ’s findings. In
    determining whether a finding of fact is supported by substantial
    evidence, this Court must consider the evidence as a whole, view the
    evidence in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed before
    the WCJ, and draw all reasonable inferences which are deducible
    from the evidence in favor of the prevailing party.
    Frog, Switch & Mfg. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Johnson), 
    106 A.3d 202
    , 206 (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
    3
    Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4, 2501-2710.
    4
    Initially, Section 416 of the Act requires an adverse party – the
    employer – to answer a claimant’s claim petition within 20 days of service. See 77
    P.S. § 821. As this Court has explained:
    When an employer fails to file an answer within that
    statutory period without adequate excuse, every well-
    pleaded factual allegation in the claim petition is admitted
    as true and the employer is barred from presenting
    affirmative defenses and from challenging the factual
    allegations in the claim petition. If the employer’s answer
    is found untimely, the employer may challenge only the
    legal sufficiency of the claimant’s claims, elements of the
    claim that are not well pleaded, and facts, such as
    continuing disability, with respect to time periods after the
    date that the answer was due.
    Washington v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Nat. Freight Indus., Inc.), 
    111 A.3d 214
    ,
    218 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (citations omitted); see also Heraeus Electro Nite Co. v.
    Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Ulrich), 
    697 A.2d 603
    , 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997);
    Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 
    423 A.2d 1125
    , 1127-28
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). We have further noted, however, that a “failure to file a timely
    answer is not tantamount to a default judgment[.]” Chik-Fil-A v. Workers’ Comp.
    Appeal Bd. (Mollick), 
    792 A.2d 678
    , 688 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002); see also Hawbaker v.
    Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kriner’s Quality Roofing Servs. & Uninsured
    Employer Guar. Fund), 
    159 A.3d 61
    , 72 (Pa. Cmwlth.), reargument denied (Apr. 3,
    2017), appeal denied, 
    173 A.3d 252
    (Pa. 2017). “In cases involving late answers,
    the [c]laimant is still required to prove all elements necessary to satisfy an award[.]”
    
    Chik-Fil-A, 792 A.2d at 688
    . Moreover, where a late answer bars an employer from
    asserting affirmative defenses to the allegations of a claim petition, the claimant
    receives a rebuttable presumption that his/her disability continues after the last date
    5
    the employer could have filed an answer. 
    Chik-Fil-A, 792 A.2d at 689
    (citing
    
    Heraeus, 697 A.2d at 608
    ). Therefore, the employer “is not barred . . . from
    presenting evidence itself, or attempting to discredit the [c]laimant’s evidence, to
    rebut the presumption that [c]laimant’s disability continues into the indefinite
    future.” 
    Id. Here, Employer
    did not dispute that it filed its responses to Claimant’s
    Claim Petition late. See Answer to Claim Petition, R.R. at 6-8; Amended Answer to
    Claim Petition, R.R. at 10-13; see also generally Employer’s Brief; WCJ Decision
    at 9-10, F.F. 21, R.R. at 446-47. As a result, the WCJ determined that:
    every factual allegation asserted in the Claim Petition
    [was] admitted as true and the Employer [was] barred from
    presenting any affirmative defenses or challenges to any
    of the factual allegations in the petition.
    WCJ Decision at 10, F.F. 21, R.R. at 447. The WCJ further noted, however, that
    Employer’s late answer to the Claim Petition entitled Claimant only “to a rebuttable
    presumption that the disability continues after the last date that the [E]mployer
    should have filed an answer.” WCJ Decision at 10, F.F. 21, R.R. at 447. Thus, the
    WCJ allowed Employer to put forth evidence to discredit and rebut Claimant’s
    evidence regarding the necessary elements of his claim and his entitlement to
    workers’ compensation benefits after the final date Employer could have filed a
    timely answer to the Claim Petition. This was not error. See Chik-Fil-A; Yellow
    Freight. Based on the foregoing, the WCJ determined that Claimant’s loss of
    earnings from August 25, 2015 to March 22, 2016 was due to no fault of his own
    and that Employer successfully rebutted the presumption of disability as of the date
    of the IME on March 23, 2016. WCJ Decision at 10, F.F. 21-22, R.R. at 447.
    6
    Employer argues, however, that the evidence proffered, specifically
    Claimant’s own testimony, illustrated that Claimant was terminated on August 24,
    2015 for a violation of company rules, not reasons related to Claimant’s July 29,
    2015 work-related injury. See Employer’s Brief at 38-51. Thus, Employer asserts
    that Claimant’s wage loss was not caused by his work injury, and therefore, the WCJ
    erred by granting the Claim Petition.
    Claimant testified before the WCJ regarding his employment, his
    injury, and his termination from employment. See Notes of Testimony 12/10/2015
    (N.T. 12/10/2015) at 1-52; R.R. at 28-79. Claimant explained that, while working
    as a loss prevention officer in Employer’s store on July 29, 2015, he observed,
    confronted, and apprehended a shoplifter attempting to steal baby formula. N.T.
    12/10/2015 at 8-10; R.R. at 35-37. The apprehension involved a physical altercation
    with the suspect during which Claimant injured his entire left side, including his hip,
    knee, neck, lower back, and shoulder. N.T. 12/10/2015 at 10-11; R.R. at 37-38.
    Claimant reported the incident and his injuries to his manager and his supervisor.
    N.T. 12/10/2015 at 12; R.R. at 39. He filled out a report detailing the incident and
    his injuries for Employer’s human resources (HR) department. N.T. 12/10/2015 at
    12-13; R.R. at 39-40. He sought medical attention at the hospital on the following
    day and followed up with other medical professionals for physical therapy thereafter.
    N.T. 12/10/2015 at 13-15; R.R. at 40-42. At the hospital on July 30, 2015, he
    received paperwork from a doctor returning him to light-duty work, which
    paperwork Claimant gave to HR upon returning to work. N.T. 12/10/2015 at 14, 20;
    R.R. at 41, 47. Claimant was advised, however, that no light duty work was available
    and that he would have to return to his regular job, which he did, albeit with
    discomfort. N.T. 12/10/2015 at 18, 20-21; R.R. at 45, 47-48. Claimant explained
    7
    that, but for having been fired at the end of August 2015, he would still be working.
    N.T. 12/10/2015 at 23 & 27; R.R. at 50 & 54.
    Employer presented the testimony of Senior Loss Prevention Manager
    Evan Gilbert and Director of Loss Prevention Craig Gage. See Deposition of Evan
    Gilbert, Hearing Exhibit D-6, R.R. at 192-292; Deposition of Craig Gage, Hearing
    Exhibit D-7, R.R. at 293-320. Gilbert confirmed the incident with the shoplifter,
    that Claimant reported the incident and his injuries, and that he commended
    Claimant for his actions. Gage also confirmed Claimant properly reported his injury
    from the July 29, 2015 incident per Employer’s procedures. However, Gilbert and
    Gage each reported that Claimant was fired for a violation of company rules where
    Claimant allegedly attempted to receive pay for time not worked.
    Based on this testimony, the WCJ “specifically accept[ed] as credible
    [] Claimant’s testimony surrounding the circumstances leading up to his termination
    from employment on August 24, 2015.”4 WCJ Decision at 8, F.F. 15; R.R. at 445.
    The WCJ specifically found the testimony of Employer’s witnesses Gilbert and
    Gage – that Claimant was fired for attempting to receive pay for time not worked –
    not credible to the extent it contradicted Claimant’s testimony regarding the
    circumstances of Claimant’s August 24, 2015 termination from employment. WCJ
    Decision at 9, F.F. 17; R.R. at 446. Therefore, the WCJ found that Employer had
    4
    Of course, as this Court has previously noted, in workers’ compensation matters:
    [t]he WCJ is the fact finder, and it is solely for the WCJ… to assess
    credibility and to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Neither the
    [WCAB] nor this Court may reweigh the evidence or the WCJ’s
    credibility determinations. In addition, it is solely for the WCJ, as
    the factfinder, to determine what weight to give to any evidence….
    As such, the WCJ may reject the testimony of any witness in whole
    or in part, even if that testimony is uncontradicted.
    
    Hawbaker, 159 A.3d at 69
    (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted).
    8
    not rebutted the presumption that Claimant’s wage loss was caused by his work
    injury.   See WCJ Decision at 12; R.R. at 449.          The WCAB affirmed this
    determination, expressly noting that, because the WCJ rejected Employer’s
    witnesses’ testimony regarding the reason for the termination of Claimant’s
    employment, Employer had failed to rebut the presumption that Claimant’s loss of
    earning capacity was causally related to his work-place injury. See WCAB Opinion
    at 2-5; R.R. at 466-69.
    This WCAB determination was not error. The Claim Petition alleged
    that Claimant suffered an injury in the course of his employment, that the injury
    caused him to stop working as of August 25, 2015, and that the injury is ongoing.
    See Claim Petition; R.R. at 3-4. Employer did not timely answer the Claim Petition
    and, thus, could not challenge these factual allegations.          See Washington.
    Consequently, by failing to file a timely answer, Employer admitted the factual
    allegations of Claimant’s work-related injury and that Claimant’s disability as of
    August 25, 2015 was due to his injury. See id.; Heraeus. Additionally, with respect
    to disability benefits after the last date Employer could have filed an answer to the
    Claim Petition, Employer’s failure to file an answer afforded Claimant a rebuttable
    presumption that his disability continued into the indefinite future. See Heraeus.
    Contrary to Employer’s assertion, Claimant’s own testimony does not negate the
    factual admissions or overcome the rebuttable presumption that Claimant’s loss of
    earning capacity was causally related to his continuing work injury.         Indeed,
    Claimant’s testimony corroborated the allegations of the Claim Petition and
    explained that, following the injury, medical professionals returned him to work in
    a modified capacity. Therefore, Claimant was entitled to WC benefits as of July 29,
    2015. Nonetheless, as Claimant explained, because Employer did not have light-
    9
    duty work available, Claimant returned to work in his normal job and worked
    through his pain and discomfort. As a result, Claimant suffered no lost wages, so
    his WC benefits were in a suspended status during this period. See WCJ Decision
    at 10; F.F. 22; R.R. at 447. Claimant’s testimony regarding his termination served
    merely to explain what he was told about his termination, not to provide evidence
    that Claimant’s termination and subsequent disability were unrelated to his work
    injury. Additionally, because the WCJ discredited the reasons for Claimant’s
    termination forwarded by Employer’s employees, Employer failed to rebut the
    presumption that Claimant’s ongoing loss of earning capacity was causally related
    to his continuing work injury. See Heraeus. Therefore, based on the admitted
    allegations of fact in the Claim Petition, the presumption Claimant enjoyed as a
    result of Employer’s late answer to the Claim Petition, and the credible evidence
    presented, we find no error in the WCJ’s determination that Claimant suffered a
    disabling injury on July 29, 2015, and that his loss of earning capacity following his
    August 24, 2015 termination resulted from the ongoing effects of his work injury.
    Consequently, we find no error in the WCJ’s limited grant of Claimant’s Claim
    Petition or the WCAB’s affirmance thereof.
    To the extent Employer argues that the WCJ erred by relying on the
    testimony of Claimant’s medical expert, Dr. Terri Gartenberg, to grant the Claim
    Petition, we disagree.    Employer argues that Dr. Gartenberg supplied legally
    insufficient testimony and details a number of alleged deficiencies in the testimony.
    See Employer’s Brief at 47-51.       However, even assuming the evidence was
    insufficient, Claimant was not obligated to present medical evidence in this matter.
    The Claim Petition alleged facts that, when taken as true as a result of Employer’s
    late answer to the Claim Petition, see Yellow Freight, established that Claimant
    10
    suffered a work-related injury on July 29, 2015. In such a situation, a claimant need
    not corroborate the allegations of the claim petition. See 
    Heraeus, 697 A.2d at 608
    (noting that a claimant need not corroborate the allegations contained in a claim
    petition where an employer is precluded from challenging the factual allegations
    contained in a claim petition by virtue of having failed to file a timely answer
    because the allegations stand on their own as competent evidence). Thus, Claimant
    did not need to present medical expert evidence to succeed on his Claim Petition in
    this matter, and the WCAB did not err in so determining. See WCAB Opinion at 6-
    7; R.R. at 470-71.
    B. The Termination Petition
    Next, Claimant alleges that the WCJ erred in granting Employer’s
    Termination Petition. See Claimant’s Brief at 19-25. Claimant argues that the WCJ
    improperly admitted multiple examples of irrelevant impeachment evidence, the
    combined effect of which subconsciously influenced the WCJ to grant the
    Termination Petition based on improper evidence admitted to support Employer’s
    counsel’s “bad person strategy.” 
    Id. “It is
    well established law that the admission of evidence is a matter
    within the sound discretion of the WCJ.” Swigart v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.
    (City of Williamsport), 
    131 A.3d 117
    , 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (internal quotations
    and edits omitted). Further, the WCJ assesses the credibility of and weight to be
    afforded to the evidence presented. See 
    Hawbaker, 159 A.3d at 69
    . Neither the
    WCAB nor this Court will reassess a WCJ’s evidentiary determinations absent an
    abuse of discretion. 
    Id. Further, we
    note that the admission of the evidence Claimant
    complains of prejudiced Claimant. Such is the nature of adverse evidence. See
    Pa.R.E. 403, cmt.
    11
    Here, Claimant takes issue with the admission of an edited videotape of
    Claimant allegedly shoplifting from Employer’s store on October 10, 2015, an
    undated statement from another employee regarding the October 2015 incident, two
    undated alleged eyewitness statements regarding the October 2015 incident made
    months thereafter, and a criminal docket regarding an incident that predated the July
    29, 2015 injury by four years. See Claimant’s Brief at 20-22. Claimant alleges the
    inclusion in the record of these pieces of evidence subconsciously affected the
    WCJ’s judgment in this matter. 
    Id. None of
    these allegedly inappropriately admitted
    pieces of evidence confirm Claimant’s allegations of subconscious influence on the
    WCJ’s Decision.
    While the WCJ did admit two handwritten statements and a security
    videotape related to the October 10, 2015 incident in which Employer alleged
    Claimant had shoplifted in its store following his termination in August 2015, (see
    WCJ Decision at 7, F.F. 10-12; R.R. at 444), the WCJ’s primary reason for rejecting
    Claimant’s testimony that he had not fully recovered from his injury was “primarily
    due to superseding and more credible medical evidence from the defense expert[,]”
    not the October 10, 2015 security footage, which the WCJ noted was “highly edited”
    and depicted only a limited portion of the October 10, 2015 events, or the witness
    statements, which formed no part of the WCJ’s Termination Petition analysis. WCJ
    Decision at 7-8, F.F. 10 & 15; R.R. at 444-45. Additionally, regarding the criminal
    docket summary presented, the WCJ accepted the document into evidence, and
    noted the 2011 burglary to which Claimant entered a negotiated guilty plea and was
    placed on probation. See WCJ Decision at 7, F.F. 14; R.R. at 444. Pennsylvania
    Rule of Evidence 609 allows for the automatic admission of crimen falsi convictions
    within the past 10 years to determine witness credibility. See Pa.R.E. 609(a) & (b).
    12
    Burglaries are crimen falsi offenses. Commonwealth v. Randall, 
    528 A.2d 1326
    ,
    1329 (Pa. 1987).
    Further, we find Claimant’s suggestion that the WCJ’s determination
    of Employer’s Termination Petition was subconsciously influenced by the
    complained-of evidence to be both unsupported and unconvincing. The record
    demonstrates that the WCJ determined the Termination Petition based on a review
    and weighing of Claimant’s testimony and the medical evidence offered by Claimant
    and Employer. The WCJ was free to determine the credibility and weight of the
    medical evidence submitted, and he did so in this matter. We find no abuse of
    discretion or error of law in the WCJ’s determinations. We find nothing in the record
    indicating the WCJ’s determinations or reasoning were somehow clouded by some
    theoretical, nebulous subconscious effect of the evidence admitted and discounted
    during the course of the proceedings, and we find Claimant’s wholly speculative
    arguments thereon unconvincing. Thus, we find no error in the WCAB’s affirmance
    of the WCJ’s determination of the Termination Petition.
    C. The Penalty Petition
    Lastly, Employer argues the WCJ erred by imposing penalties and
    awarding Claimant litigation costs. See Employer’s Brief at 52-57. Employer bases
    its challenge on the success of its challenge of the Claim Petition. See 
    id. Employer basically
    argues that because, in its opinion, “[C]laimant should not have received
    even a limited award of disability benefits[,]” the WCJ erred in awarding Claimant
    litigation costs and penalties. We do not agree.
    Section 440 of the Act allows a WCJ, in his/her discretion, to award the
    payment of reasonable sums for litigation costs and attorney’s fees where an injured
    13
    employee is victorious in a contested case. 77 P.S. § 996(a), added by Act of
    February 8, 192, P.L. 25, as amended. Additionally, Section 406.1 of the Act
    requires an employer to issue pertinent Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
    documents within 21 days of receiving notice of an employee’s disability. 77 P.S. §
    717.1, added by Act of February 8, 192, P.L. 25, as amended.
    For the reasons stated above, the WCJ properly awarded Claimant
    benefits in this contested matter. After partially granting the Claim Petition and
    awarding Claimant contested benefits, the WCJ listed and found reasonable
    Claimant’s litigation expenses. F.F. 24; R.R. at 447-48. The WCJ also expressly
    found Claimant’s fee agreement with counsel reasonable and approved payment of
    attorney’s fees. F.F. 25; R.R. at 448. These determinations were within the province
    of the WCJ and are expressly allowed by the Act.
    Additionally, the WCJ imposed a 10% penalty based on Employer’s
    failure to timely issue required Bureau of Workers’ Compensation documents. F.F.
    29; R.R. at 448. To the extent it argues against the imposition of this penalty,
    Employer again argues essentially that the WCJ imposed the penalty based on an
    improper award of benefits and, therefore, should never have imposed the penalty in
    the first place. See Employer’s Brief at 56-57. Employer makes no allegation that
    it did, in fact, timely file the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation documents for which
    it was penalized. The WCJ did not err in imposing this penalty. See 77 P.S. § 717.1.
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the WCAB’s order affirming the
    WCJ Decision granting: 1) Claimant’s Claim Petition, in part; 2) Employer’s
    Termination Petition; and 3) Claimant’s Penalty Petition.
    __________________________________
    CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
    14
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Lawrence Brantley,                  :
    Petitioner         :
    :
    v.                       :
    :
    Workers’ Compensation Appeal        :
    Board (Brown’s Shop Rite),          :   No. 452 C.D. 2018
    Respondent         :
    Brown’s Super Stores,               :
    Petitioner         :
    :
    v.                       :
    :
    Workers’ Compensation Appeal        :
    Board (Brantley),                   :   No. 491 C.D. 2018
    Respondent        :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2019, the March 20, 2018 order of
    the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.
    __________________________________
    CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 452 and 491 C.D. 2018

Judges: Fizzano Cannon, J.

Filed Date: 7/10/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/10/2019