Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board violates long-standing workers’ compensation principles by overturning credibility findings made by a worker’s compensation judge.

The claimant suffered a work injury to her right thumb in the nature of a strain/sprain. The injury was later expanded by the workers’ compensation judge to include a right ulnar collateral ligament tear and reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD)/complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). In 2019, the judge denied a Termination Petition filed by the employer, which alleged a full recovery as of March 27, 2018. The judge rejected the opinion of the employer’s medical expert that there was no objective basis for an ongoing RSD/CRPS diagnosis and that the claimant’s complaints were from malingering. 

The employer filed a second Termination Petition on July 7, 2020, alleging a full recovery from the work injury as of June 17, 2020. This time, the same judge partially granted the termination petition, finding that the claimant fully recovered from the right thumb and right ulnar collateral ligament injuries, but not the RSD/CRPS. The judge noted that the employer’s medical expert, in giving his opinion of full recovery, did not specifically address the Budapest criteria, considered the gold standard for diagnosing RSD or CRPS. The employer appealed to the Appeal Board. The Board reversed, finding that the judge capriciously disregarded competent medical evidence in finding that the employer had not met its burden of proving its entitlement to a termination of benefits because its medical expert did not address the Budapest criteria for RSD/CRPS. The claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

The Commonwealth Court reversed the Board and affirmed the judge’s decision. The court found that the judge’s finding to not rely on the Budapest criteria for assessing RSD/CRPS was simply a misstatement and did not render his decision arbitrary and capricious. The judge’s credibility determinations were thoroughly explained and on the whole, the judge’s reasoning was sufficient to support his credibility determinations. 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 4, April 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}