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.

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.

^{_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2017. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}}