# CPV Manufacturing, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · August 19, 2002 · 805 A.2d 653

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629406

## Case

- **Full name:** CPV MANUFACTURING, INC. and PMA Insurance Group, Petitioners, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (McGovern), Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 19, 2002
- **Citations:** 805 A.2d 653; 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 750
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Friedman
- **Judges:** Colins, Smith-Ribner, Pellegrini, Friedman, Leadbetter, Cohn, Leavitt
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629406

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge FRIEDMAN.
I agree with the opinion of the majority insofar as it concludes that the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) did not err in affirming the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granting the claim petition and petition for review of the utilization review organization’s determination filed on behalf of Darren McGovern (Claimant). I respectfully dissent, however, from that portion of the majority’s opinion insofar as it concludes that the Board erred in affirming that aspect of the WCJ’s decision awarding Claimant partial wage loss benefits.
There is no question that Claimant sustained a work-related injury in the nature of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in the course of his employment with CPV Manufacturing, Inc. (Employer). As the majority opinion notes, Claimant’s treating physician, Spencer Broad, D.C., recommended a course of treatment for Claimant involving *660 carpal manipulation, myofascial release techniques, joint mobilization and electrical stimulation. As the majority opinion also notes, Dr. Broad was of the “strong” opinion that Claimant “is able to work with no significant restrictions as long as he is treated approximately one to two times per month.” (N.T., Deposition of Dr. Broad, pp. 11-12). The WCJ accepted the testimony of Dr. Broad as credible and persuasive.
In order to receive his necessary treatments from Dr. Broad, Claimant would leave work early every other Friday. 1 Admittedly, Dr. Broad’s office hours accommodated Claimant’s work schedule such that he could attend his appointments later in the day and not miss any time from work. However, as the Board noted in its opinion, nothing in the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act 2 requires a claimant to schedule medical treatment for a work-related injury during non-working hours. Moreover, Claimant’s receipt of these medical treatments ultimately benefited Employer, as Dr. Broad essentially indicated that Claimant required these treatments in order to perform his job. If Claimant did not receive these treatments, he would presumably be entitled to total disability benefits. Hence, I believe the WCJ was correct in awarding Claimant partial wage loss benefits for the time he missed work in order to treat his work-related injury.
For these reasons, I would affirm the order of the Board in its entirety.
Judge SMITH-RIBNER joins this dissent.
. Claimant lost approximately eight hours per month in seeking this treatment.
. Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4; 2501-2626.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629406. Public record. Not legal advice.