SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Case Summaries
Lewis v. City of Phila.
No. 362 C.D. 2024
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided: August 11, 2025
Claimants who execute a stipulation relative to a physical work injury are not necessarily precluded from later expanding the diagnosis to include a psychological component where the claimant did not have a basis to believe the psychological injury was related at the time of entering into the stipulation.
Background
In April 2021, Claimant filed a Review Petition to expand the description of an accepted injury. The parties resolved the Review Petition through a Stipulation, wherein they agreed to a description of injury, which was solely physical. In September 2021, Claimant filed a second Review Petition, therein seeking to expand the work injury to include a psychological component. Employer argued that res judicata barred Claimant from expanding the work injury as such.
Citing to Weney v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (MAC Sprinkler Systems, Inc.), the WCJ held that although Claimant’s mental injuries may have been manifesting during the previous round of litigation, they were not part of the earlier litigation, and therefore, Claimant was not precluded from proceeding with the second Review Petition. Employer appealed to the Board, which reversed the WCJ’s Decision, given that Claimant was aware of the psychological injuries when he signed the Stipulation. Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Holding
The Commonwealth Court agreed with the WCJ that this matter is factually distinguishable from Weney since there was no concrete evidence that Claimant knew his psychological symptoms were related to the work incident during the prior round of litigation.
Takeaway
This case illustrates the importance of carefully wording stipulations to prevent claimants from expanding the work injury in future rounds of litigation.
Questions about this case can be directed to Emily LaGreca at 267-861-7589 or elagreca@tthlaw.com.
Mill v. Moss (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
2025 LX 318185
Decided: August 12, 2025
Background
Claimant was electrocuted at work in 2018, which caused tremors that worsened over time. He notified his Employer of the accident immediately and continued to work full duty for two years thereafter. In January 2021, he stopped working and notified his Employer that his doctor believed the tremors could be linked to the 2018 electrocution. Claimant filed a Claim Petition. His doctor diagnosed him with work-related cervical dystonia and a functional movement tremor. Employer’s doctor deemed Claimant’s movements psychogenic, based on the tremors stopping upon distraction, the inconsistent movement patterns, and the absence of excessive muscle tone in the area of the purported tremor. Employer requested Claimant’s psychiatric records to support this defense, but the WCJ held that Claimant need not sign the authorization form to release the records. Employer also submitted two hours of surveillance showing Claimant sitting without shaking or tremoring. The WCJ granted the Claim Petition and the Board affirmed.
Holding
The Commonwealth affirmed the Board. Despite the two-year gap before Claimant notified his Employer of the tremors being work related, notice was still timely since Claimant provided immediate notice of the accident itself and ultimately of the causal relationship to the tremors once he learned of the same. The WCJ’s refusal to allow Employer to obtain Claimant’s psychiatric records did not amount to a due process violation since the Claim Petition did not allege a psychiatric injury and Employer was not prevented from presenting its doctors’ testimony regarding this issue. Finally, the WCJ’s ultimate findings in favor of Claimant did not amount to a capricious disregard of Employer’s evidence, despite the surveillance showing no tremor, the medical reports with no diagnosis of a work injury, and Claimant continuing to work full duty for two years. The WCJ referenced all of the above in his Decision.
Takeaway
This Opinion showcases the high level of deference the Commonwealth Court and WCAB afford to WCJs being the ultimate finders of fact and assessors of credibility. There can never be a crystal ball to predict where a WCJ will land, even when the evidence of record is seemingly overwhelmingly in your favor.
Questions about this case can be directed to Cailey Farinaro at 610-332-6008 or cfarinaro@tthlaw.com.