An impairment rating given for a medical condition that is not part of the recognized work injury will not bar the employer from obtaining a termination for the official work injury.
The claimant sustained a work-related injury to his right ankle. The employer issued a notice of compensation payable (NCP) acknowledging the right ankle sprain, and the claimant received temporary total disability benefits. The claimant was later seen for an IRE and was given a 13% impairment, and the employer subsequently filed a modification petition to change the claimant to partial disability status. An IME was then performed, and this physician concluded that the claimant was fully recovered. The employer petitioned to terminate the claimant’s benefits. The claimant then filed a petition to review to amend the injury description in the NCP to include additional conditions described by the IRE physician in his report.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge not only granted the employer’s modification petition, based on the results of the IRE, but he also granted the employer’s termination petition and denied the claimant’s review petition. The claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed the judge’s decision. In his appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that the report from the IRE physician established the “compensable injury” and that the testimony of the IME physician, in his opinion, only addressed the injury that was described on the NCP.
The Commonwealth Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal and affirmed the decisions of the Judge and the Board. According to the court, although §306 (a.2) states that the impairment rating is to be based on the “compensable injury,” it does not state that an impairment rating based on all of the claimant’s medical conditions changes the work injury. Secondly, the court noted that the IRE physician did not opine that the work injury was anything more than an ankle sprain. The IRE physician included the claimant’s right foot and ankle in his impairment rating out of an abundance of caution. Finally, the court held that the judge’s acceptance of the IRE did not alter the employer’s burden of proof on the termination petition.
Case Law Alert, 1st Quarter 2014