The Supreme Court affirms the granting of a termination petition by the Board, concluding that the employer did not need to show a change in the claimant's physical condition to meet its burden of proof.

This case involved an appeal on the issue of what exactly is the employer's burden of proof in a termination petition. The claimant was a boiler maker who had a physical injury involving a syrinx, which is a rare abnormal cyst inside the spine. In 2004, a petition was litigated before the Board which found that the claimant had sustained a work injury by repeatedly hitting his head while inside an oil tank as he was welding and carrying pipe, thereby aggravating this condition, and was entitled to compensation for total disability because he was unable to work due to his current symptoms as well as the risk of further aggravating the syrinx condition. Later in 2011, the employer filed a petition to terminate the claimant's total disability benefits. The medical evidence presented on behalf of the employer showed that the claimant was able to return to work at a sedentary level with the ability to change positions as needed, and that, based on the stability of the claimant's condition, the sedentary activity would not aggravate the syrinx condition. The employer also presented a Labor Market Survey showing eleven jobs that were physically suited to the claimant's condition. The claimant's treating physician testified that the claimant's condition had not improved and that he was concerned about the claimant's ability to perform tasks repeatedly in a work setting. The Board concluded that the claimant's total disability had terminated and that the sedentary work would not risk aggravating his condition. The Superior Court affirmed.

 The claimant's appeal to the Supreme Court asserted that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the Board from finding that the claimant was not totally disabled, which was determined in the Board's prior decision, and the employer had presented no new evidence that the claimant's physical condition had changed. The Court rejected that argument and found that neither of these legal doctrines barred the Board from finding as it did. The Court analyzed Section 2347 of the Act, which allows the parties to file a petition to change benefits where there has been a change in status. The Court emphasized that Section 2347 allows the employer to petition the Board to review previous total disability awards, so long as there has been a change in condition or circumstances. That is different from requiring the employer to prove that the physical injury has changed. In this case, the Court found that the Board was not invalidating or even revisiting the prior Board decision, which had awarded the claimant benefits, but, rather, was examining whether the claimant's current condition permitted him to return to work. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the granting of the termination petition as having been legally correct and supported by substantial evidence.

Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013