A claimant's burden of proof on a reinstatement petition was not met where the claimant's evidence failed to show that the reason for a suspension of benefits no longer existed.

The claimant sustained a work-related injury to his low back in April of 2002. Approximately two years later, he returned to his regular job with no restrictions, and his benefits were suspended pursuant to a Notification of Suspension. In June of 2004, the claimant again hurt his low back and filed a claim petition. During litigation, the parties resolved the claim petition by stipulation. The parties agreed to the work injury and that there was a limited period of disability from June 8, 2004, through October 7, 2004. It was also agreed that the claimant returned to his regular job without restrictions on October 8, 2004, and that the claimant stopped working for the employer in December of 2004 because of injuries unrelated to his back. The workers' compensation judge issued a decision adopting the stipulation in May of 2006. Later, in January 2008, the claimant filed a reinstatement petition, alleging that his condition worsened and his work injury caused him to suffer a loss of earning power as of January 24, 2008. In actuality, the claimant was requesting a reinstatement as of December 5, 2004, when he stopped working for the employer. During litigation of the reinstatement petition, the claimant testified that he was terminated by the employer in December of 2004 for taking too many sick days. He also acknowledged that no specific incident prompted him to seek a reinstatement and said that since December of 2004, he has been capable of performing his pre-injury job without restrictions. The claimant's medical expert testified that the claimant would not have been able to perform his regular job at any time between December of 2004 and November of 2006, when he began treating the claimant. The workers' compensation judge granted the reinstatement petition, and the WCAB affirmed. The Commonwealth Court, however, reversed. They agreed with the employer that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof for the reinstatement petition, since he failed to show that the reasons for the suspension no longer existed. The court pointed out that the claimant had previously stipulated that he stopped working for the employer in December 2004 for reasons unrelated to the work injury. The court also noted that the claimant acknowledged he could perform his regular job as of December 2004 and February 2008. The court viewed this testimony as contrary to the theory that the claimant's work injury once again negatively impacted his earning power.

Case Law Alert, 4th Qtr 2011