The opinion
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Amanda Bailey, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 170 C.D. 2022
:
Pyramid Health Holdings, LLC : Submitted: May 7, 2024
(Workers’ Compensation :
Appeal Board), :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: June 5, 2024
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Petitioner Amanda Bailey
(Claimant) petitions for review of the February 1, 2022 order of the Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the August 4, 2021 decision and
order of Workers’ Compensation Judge Robert Vonada (WCJ). The WCJ granted
Claimant’s claim petition (Claim Petition) in part, awarding medical benefits for the
period between January 31, 2019, and May 2, 2019. The WCJ otherwise denied the
Claim Petition and terminated benefits as of November 12, 2019, concluding that
Claimant’s disability and related medical treatment on and after May 2, 2019, were
unrelated to her work injury.
On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ’s
decision, which Claimant contends was neither reasoned under Section 422(a) of the
Workers’ Compensation Act (Act),1 77 P.S. § 834, nor supported by substantial
1
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4, 2501-2710.
evidence in the record. Respondent Pyramid Health Holdings, LLC (Employer)
contends the WCJ’s decision was both reasoned and supported by substantial evidence.
Upon review, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Claimant filed the Claim Petition on July 23, 2019, alleging that, on January
31, 2019, she sustained a lower back injury described as “lower back, pinched nerve,
back surgery.” (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 008a.) Claimant requested temporary
total disability benefits beginning May 2, 2019, together with medical benefits and
counsel fees. Id. at 010a-11a. Employer filed an Answer denying that Claimant was
entitled to benefits. Employer alleged that, although Claimant had stopped working as
of May 2, 2019, she had not stopped working because of her work injury. Id. at 016a.
The Claim Petition was assigned to the WCJ, who held a hearing over the course of
several days.
Claimant testified that she formerly was employed as a direct care worker
for Employer, which position involved helping individuals with disabilities to cook,
clean, and bathe. On January 31, 2019, while Claimant was helping an individual out
of the shower and back into his wheelchair, the wheelchair caught on a lip between the
shower and the floor. Both the individual and the wheelchair fell on Claimant. After
some struggle, Claimant was able to return the individual, who weighed approximately
250 pounds, to the wheelchair. Claimant reported the incident to the on-call nurse, but
did not report that she had been injured because she did not feel that she was injured at
that time.
Approximately one week before the end of February 2019, Claimant was
experiencing constant leg cramps, numbness, and tingling in her left leg from her hip
to her toes, and low back pain and stiffness. Claimant at times was immobile and had
2
spasms on her left side. On March 6, 2019, Claimant reported the injury to her manager
during a staff meeting and advised that she was going to file for workers’ compensation
benefits because her physical condition was preventing her from doing her job.
Claimant described her physical conditions to several of her coworkers.
After Claimant reported the work injury, Employer sent Claimant to a
walk-in clinic, which was the first medical provider she saw following the January 31,
2019 incident. There she was given Prednisone packs and advised to treat with her
family physician. Claimant’s family physician prescribed Gabapentin and Flexeril and
ordered a Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) and x-ray. The MRI was performed on
Claimant’s back and left knee. Claimant also underwent a course of physical therapy,
which was unsuccessful, and thereafter she was referred to Gregory M. Bailey, D.O.
(Dr. Bailey), an orthopedic spine surgeon. Dr. Bailey performed a spinal fusion on
July 10, 2019. The surgery reduced Claimant’s symptoms, but she continued to have
numbness and tingling. Claimant testified that, prior to January 31, 2019, she
experienced leg pain due to knee osteoarthritis, but did not have back pain or back
problems.
Claimant presented Dr. Bailey’s deposition testimony taken on November
19, 2020. Dr. Bailey is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon concentrating in
degenerative cervical and lumbar spine ailments. Dr. Bailey first saw Claimant on June
12, 2019. The notes from Dr. Bailey’s assistant indicate that Claimant told Dr. Bailey
that she had injured herself at work on January 31, 2019, at which time she felt a
popping sensation in her back with pain extending down her leg. Claimant stated that
the symptoms from the incident increased over the next two weeks, after which she
developed radicular pain emanating from the upper buttock down through her leg and
foot. Dr. Bailey’s notes do not reference Claimant’s delay in seeking treatment.
3
After examining Claimant and reviewing the results of the MRI taken on
May 13, 2019, Dr. Bailey noted that the MRI showed degenerative disk disease with
retrolisthesis. He also noted a large disk herniation compressing a nerve root. Based
on those observations, Dr. Bailey concluded that Claimant had an acute disk herniation
that he related to her January 31, 2019 work injury. Dr. Bailey accordingly performed
the fusion surgery on July 10, 2019. After a November 8, 2019 MRI indicated a new
disk compression, Dr. Bailey performed a second fusion surgery on December 12,
2019.
Regarding Claimant’s degenerative condition, Dr. Bailey noted that the
scope and size of the original disc herniation on the May 13, 2019 MRI would render
someone fairly incapacitated and evidenced an acute-on-chronic phenomenon. Dr.
Bailey could not relate the second disk herniation to the January 31, 2019 injury with
a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Dr. Bailey also noted that Claimant did not
report to him at her initial appointment that she had complained of and received
treatment for back pain and related problems prior to her January 31, 2019 work injury.
Employer presented the deposition testimony of Thomas Steven
Muzzonigro, M.D. (Dr. Muzzonigro), who is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with
an area of special surgical interest in the hip and knee. He performed an independent
medical evaluation (IME) of Claimant on November 12, 2019, at which Claimant
reported the January 31, 2019 work injury and indicated that, although her back was
hurting a little the day of the injury, the pain did not become severe until two to three
weeks later. Dr. Muzzonigro reviewed Claimant’s medical records from the walk-in
clinic and her visits with Dr. Bailey. At the time of the IME, Claimant reported a
preexisting knee injury and treatment, but denied any preexisting problems with, or
treatment for, her back.
4
Dr. Muzzonigro received additional medical records after his IME
indicating that Claimant had complained of, and received treatment for, bilateral
paresthesia prior to her work injury. The records indicated that Claimant had been
prescribed Cyclobenzaprine and ibuprofen and epidural steroid injections, which
treatment Dr. Muzzonigro indicated was inconsistent with Claimant’s report to him.
Dr. Muzzonigro testified that, after reviewing Claimant’s history and all of the medical
records, it was his opinion that Claimant had sustained a lumbosacral sprain/strain and
contusion on January 31, 2019, from which Claimant was fully recovered as of
November 12, 2019. Dr. Muzzonigro further testified that Claimant’s fusion surgeries
with Dr. Bailey were unrelated to her work injury.
Employer also presented the testimony of Alicia Crotsley, who is
Claimant’s former coworker who worked with her at the time of her injury. Crotsley
testified that, although Claimant mentioned that her back hurt and that she could not
keep up with her regular job duties, Crotsley did not recall Claimant mentioning that
her injury occurred at work.
In his decision, the WCJ made extensive findings of fact, which included
the following relevant credibility determinations:
54. [ ] Claimant’s testimony is not credible. [ ] Claimant
denied prior treatment to her low back in her testimony and
to both physicians who testified. The records show she had
prior back treatment that rose to the level of prescription
medications and epidural injections. She had prior
complaints of bilateral paresthesia in her legs. Consistent
with [] Claimant’s attempt to conceal her prior low[ ]back
treatment, I do not find credible [] Claimant’s testimony
relating her severe symptoms in mid[-]to[-]late February to
the January 31, 2019 incident.
I accept that the incident occurred, but I note the
history taken by Dr. Bailey’s physician’s assistant that []
Claimant heard a pop and had immediate pain on the date of
5
injury was inconsistent with her testimony. As Dr. Bailey
explained, the symptoms [] Claimant first complained of in
mid[-]to[-]late February are consistent with the MRI finding
of a disk herniation as is the history of a pop and immediate
pain. Dr. Bailey did not have a history of the delay in the
onset of these symptoms. He also did not have the history of
[] Claimant’s prior complaints and treatment.
55. The findings and opinions of Dr. Muzzonigro are more
credible than the findings and opinions of Dr. Bailey. Dr.
Bailey did not have an accurate history as set forth above.
Accordingly, the opinion of Dr. Muzzonigro is more credible
that [ ] Claimant had a lumbar strain and contusion with
aggravation of her preexisting radiculopathy on January 31,
2019, but Dr. Bailey’s surgery was unrelated to the incident
at work. Dr. Muzzonigro’s opinion that [ ] Claimant was
fully recovered from the January 31, 2019 injury as of the
date of his examination was also well reasoned and credible
in light of [ ] Claimant’s intervening new diagnosis and
treatment.
(WCJ Findings of Fact (FOF) 54, 55.) Based on these findings, the WCJ concluded:
[ ] Claimant has met her burden to establish . . . that she
sustained a work injury on January 31, 2019 in the nature of
a lumbar strain and contusion with aggravation of a pre-
existing radiculopathy. However, [ ] Claimant has not met
her burden to establish . . . that her disability beginning May
2, 2019 is related to that injury. The disability beginning
May 2, 2019 is associated with the condition for which Dr.
Bailey performed surgery on two occasions. According to
the credible testimony of Dr. Muzzonigro, this condition is
unrelated to the January 31, 2019 work injury. Accordingly,
[ ] Claimant’s Claim Petition should be granted only to award
payment for medical treatment between the date of the injury
and the alleged date of disability of May 2, 2019.
(WCJ Conclusions of Law (COL) 1.) The WCJ accordingly granted the Claim Petition,
in part, and awarded medical benefits for Claimant’s work injury for the period
6
between January 31, 2019 and May 2, 2019. The WCJ denied the Claim Petition with
regard to any medical or indemnity benefits on or after May 2, 2019.
Claimant appealed to the Board, arguing that the WCJ’s findings
regarding Claimant’s credibility and the credibility of the medical experts were not
supported by substantial evidence and that the WCJ’s decision was not well reasoned.
(R.R. at 031a.)2 The Board affirmed, concluding that the WCJ’s credibility
determinations were adequately reasoned. It further concluded that the WCJ’s finding
that Claimant’s disability beginning May 2, 2019, was not causally related to her work
injury was supported by substantial evidence.
Claimant now appeals to this Court.
II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED3
Claimant presents three questions for our review: (1) whether the Board
erred in concluding that the WCJ made a reasoned decision in finding portions of
Claimant’s testimony to be not credible; (2) whether the Board erred in concluding that
the WCJ made a reasoned decision in concluding that Dr. Muzzonigro’s testimony was
more credible than Dr. Bailey’s testimony; and (3) whether the Board erred in
concluding that the WCJ’s determination that Claimant’s disability and treatment from
May 2, 2019, onward were not related to her work injury was supported by substantial
evidence.
2
Specifically, Claimant challenged findings of fact 54 and 55, which are the credibility
determinations regarding Claimant’s testimony and that of Drs. Bailey and Muzzonigro. (FOF 54,
55.) Claimant also challenged conclusion of law 1.
3
Our review in workers’ compensation appeals “is limited to determining whether necessary
findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or
whether constitutional rights were violated.” Columbia County Commissioners v. Rospendowski
(Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), 286 A.3d 436, (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (quoting Elberson v.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Elwyn, Inc.), 936 A.2d 1195, 1198 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)).
7
III. DISCUSSION
A. Credibility Determinations
Claimant’s first two issues involve the WCJ’s credibility determinations
and whether they are sufficiently “reasoned” under Section 422(a) of the Act. Section
422(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
All parties to an adjudicatory proceeding are entitled to a
reasoned decision containing findings of fact and
conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a whole which
clearly and concisely states and explains the rationale for the
decisions so that all can determine why and how a particular
result was reached. The [WCJ] shall specify the evidence
upon which the [WCJ] relies and state the reasons for
accepting it in conformity with this section. When faced with
conflicting evidence, the [WCJ] must adequately explain the
reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent evidence.
Uncontroverted evidence may not be rejected for no reason
or for an irrational reason; the [WCJ] must identify that
evidence and explain adequately the reasons for its rejection.
The adjudication shall provide the basis for meaningful
appellate review.
77 P.S. § 834. To satisfy the general reasoned decision requirement, a
WCJ must set forth the rationale for the decision by
specifying the evidence relied upon and reasons for
accepting it. In the face of conflicting evidence, the WCJ
“must adequately explain the reasons for rejecting or
discrediting competent evidence.” 77 P.S. § 834. Section
422(a) does not require the WCJ to discuss all of the evidence
presented[,] but only to make the findings necessary to
resolve the issues raised by the evidence and relevant to the
decision. The purpose of a reasoned decision is to spare the
reviewing court from having to imagine why the WCJ
believed one witness over another and to permit adequate
appellate review.
8
Department of Corrections-SCI Chester v. Faison (Workers’ Compensation Appeal
Board), 266 A.3d 714, 736-37 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (most internal citations, quotations,
and bracketing removed).
Specifically regarding whether a WCJ’s credibility determinations are
adequately “reasoned” under Section 422(a), we have explained:
Although our Supreme Court has held that a WCJ need not
explain credibility determinations relating to a witness who
testifies before the WCJ, [see Daniels v. Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 828 A.2d
1043, 1052-53 (Pa. 2003),] Section 422(a) of the Act requires
some explanation of credibility determinations by a WCJ
with regard to conflicting deposition testimony in order to
enable this Court to review a WCJ’s decision. Under Section
422(a) of the Act, a WCJ must articulate the objective
rationale underlying his credibility determinations where the
testimony of such witnesses is conflicting. A WCJ may
satisfy the reasoned decision requirement if he summarizes
the witnesses’ testimony and adequately explains his
credibility determinations. Thus, while summaries of
testimony alone would be insufficient to satisfy the reasoned
decision requirement, where a WCJ summarizes testimony
and also objectively explains his credibility determinations,
the decision will satisfy the requirement. Further, other
evidence in the record may provide the objective support
necessary under Section 422(a) of the Act for adequate
credibility determinations.
Amandeo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Conagra Foods), 37 A.3d 72, 76
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Other circumstances
providing “objective support” for a reasoned decision would include, but not
necessarily be limited to
an expert witness’s opinion may be based upon erroneous
factual assumptions; or an expert may have had less
interaction with the subject; or the interaction was in a less
timely fashion; or the expert may betray a bias or interest in
9
the matter[;] an expert witness may be unqualified or less
qualified than the opposing party’s expert; or may be
impeached with inconsistencies or contradictions in his or
her testimony or reports; or may be impeached in some other
convincing fashion.
Daniels, 828 A.2d at 1053 (citations omitted).
Finally, and importantly here, we have often emphasized that Section
422(a) of the Act does not permit a party to question or second-guess the substance of
a WCJ’s reasons for credibility determinations. Dorsey v. Workers’ Compensation
Appeal Board (Crossing Construction Co.), 893 A.2d 191, 195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006);
Kasper v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Perloff Brothers, Inc.), 769 A.2d
1242, 1244 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). We expressly have declined a claimant’s invitation
to scrutinize each of the WCJ’s reasons for his credibility determinations, explaining
that
[d]eciding credibility is the quintessential function of the
fact-finder, particularly one who sees and hears the
testimony. It is not an exact science, and the ultimate
conclusion comprises far more than a tally sheet of its
various components. We will not take the statutory mandate
that a WCJ explain reasons for discrediting evidence as a
license to undermine the exercise of this critical function by
second guessing one or more of its constituent parts.
Kasper, 769 A.2d at 1244 (footnote omitted). Thus, unless made arbitrarily or
capriciously, a WCJ’s credibility determinations will not be disturbed on appeal.
Empire Steel Castings, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Cruceta), 749
A.2d 1021, 1027 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000); PEC Contracting Engineers v. Workers'
Compensation Appeal Board (Hutchinson), 717 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
A WCJ acts capriciously when he or she deliberately ignores relevant, competent
evidence, or, in other words, deliberately or baselessly disregards apparently
trustworthy evidence. Faison, 266 A.3d at 736. See also Casne v. Workers’
10
Compensation Appeal Board (STAT Couriers, Inc., and State Workers’ Insurance
Fund), 962 A.2d 14, 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (even where a WCJ makes credibility
determinations on a cold record, this Court affords substantial deference and will
overturn those determinations only where they are arbitrary and capricious “or so
fundamentally dependent on a misapprehension of material facts, or so otherwise
flawed, as to render [the WCJ’s decision] irrational”).
1. Claimant’s Testimony
Claimant first argues that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ’s
determination that Claimant’s testimony was not credible. Claimant contends that the
WCJ should not have found her testimony to be not credible based on her concealment
of her preexisting back problems and treatment. Although Claimant does not deny that
she failed to mention her prior back issues to both Drs. Bailey and Muzzonigro, she
nevertheless argues that the omissions were innocent and that both doctors in any event
knew about her degenerative condition. Claimant accordingly argues that her
testimony should not be “controlling” on the issue of whether her disability is related
to her work injury. (Claimant’s Br. at 10-12.)
First, Claimant misapprehends the nature of the WCJ’s determination
regarding her credibility. The WCJ found that, because Claimant omitted informing
both doctors and the WCJ about her preexisting back conditions and treatment, her
testimony relating her severe symptoms to her work injury was not credible. The WCJ
did not consider Claimant’s testimony to be “controlling” on any question. He instead
discounted Claimant’s testimony to the extent that it supported the notion that her
severe symptoms, appearing weeks after her work injury, were causally related to it.
The WCJ noted that Claimant’s failure to mention her prior conditions and treatment
to Dr. Bailey and her inconsistency in reporting when the severe symptoms first began
11
negatively impacted the credibility of Dr. Bailey’s opinions, which were not based on
an accurate set of facts. Thus, contrary to Claimant’s assertions, the WCJ did not deem
Claimant’s testimony to be “controlling as to the diagnosis of her work injury, resulting
disability, and credibility [of] the medical testimony of Dr. Bailey.” Id. at 12. Rather,
the WCJ found Claimant’s testimony regarding the onset and timing of her severe
symptoms to be at least inaccurate, if not deceitful, and therefore not credible either in
its own right or to support the medical opinions of Dr. Bailey.
Second, and controllingly, we interpret Claimant’s argument as an
invitation to reevaluate and “second-guess” the WCJ’s credibility determination, which
we may not do. A WCJ need only explain the rationale used for discrediting otherwise
competent, relevant evidence to a degree that permits a court to conduct meaningful
appellate review without having to “imagine” the WCJ’s reasoning. Regarding live
witnesses such as Claimant, a WCJ may rely exclusively on the witness’s demeanor to
justify a credibility finding. The WCJ went much further here to explain both the
perceived deceitfulness, or at least neglectfulness, in Claimant’s testimony and
disclosures to the medical experts and how Claimant’s testimony contradicted medical
records. The WCJ’s determinations are reasoned and supported by the record, and we
will not disturb them on appeal. Claimant’s request that we do so is without merit.
2. Medical Testimony
Claimant next argues that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ’s
credibility determinations regarding the conflicting medical testimony offered by Drs.
Bailey and Muzzonigro. Specifically, although Claimant expressly concedes that Dr.
Muzzonigro’s opinions were competent, she nevertheless contends that the WCJ “erred
in giving more weight to his testimony than the testimony of [ ] Dr. Bailey, leading to
an unreasonable decision.” (Claimant’s Br. at 12.) Claimant argues that, because Dr.
12
Bailey was Claimant’s treating physician and specializes in spinal surgery, the WCJ
erred in attributing more weight to the opinions of Dr. Muzzonigro, a general
orthopedic surgeon who saw Claimant on only a single occasion to conduct an IME.
Id. Claimant contends that because a treating physician’s opinion may be given greater
weight than that of a medical expert retained for litigation, Dr. Bailey’s opinions were
entitled to greater weight in this instance. Claimant’s arguments are without merit in
several respects.
First, although Claimant purports to argue that the WCJ’s decision is
unreasoned with regard to the medical testimony, the challenge in reality is directed at
the weight the WCJ gave to the substance of the medical opinions. We will not disturb
such determinations on appeal unless the WCJ’s decision is arbitrary and capricious,
i.e., the WCJ has deliberately ignored relevant, competent evidence or has rendered an
irrational decision based on a fundamental misapprehension of the facts. Faison, 266
A.3d at 736; Casne, 962 A.2d at 19. Claimant does not argue that the WCJ’s findings
are arbitrary and capricious; nor could she. The WCJ thoroughly analyzed both
doctors’ credentials and the medical records and patient histories upon which they
relied in rendering their opinions. It is clear from his findings that the WCJ had a
thorough understanding of the medical issues presented in this case and identified
relevant differences in the facts relied upon by the doctors to give appropriate weight
to their opinions. And, plainly, merely because a WCJ may lend more weight to the
opinion of a treating physician does not mean that he must do so. We find nothing
arbitrary or capricious in the WCJ’s credibility and weight determinations.
Second, to the extent that Claimant does in fact assert that the WCJ’s
credibility determinations concerning the medical testimony are unreasoned, we
disagree. Because each expert’s testimony was submitted via their respective
13
depositions, the WCJ was required to, at least, summarize the pertinent testimony and
objectively explain his associated credibility determinations, providing additional
objective support from the record, if available. Amandeo, 37 A.3d at 76. The WCJ
explained that he found Dr. Muzzonigro more credible than Dr. Bailey in certain
respects because Dr. Bailey did not have a completely accurate medical history from
Claimant. Claimant did not inform Dr. Bailey of the delay in the onset of her symptoms
and did not provide any information regarding her prior back problems and treatment.
Further, Dr. Muzzonigro reviewed additional medical records detailing Claimant’s
prior treatment that Dr. Bailey did not review. Based on these facts, the WCJ credited
Dr. Muzzonigro’s opinion over that of Dr. Bailey regarding whether Claimant’s work
injury, and not another acute event occurring later, caused Claimant’s disability. We,
like the Board, find the WCJ’s explanation of his credibility determinations in this
regard to be adequately reasoned. We therefore will not disturb them.
B. Substantial Evidence
Claimant lastly argues that the WCJ’s decision was not based on
substantial evidence chiefly because his credibility determinations regarding
Claimant’s and the doctors’ testimony were not reasoned. Because we have concluded
that the WCJ’s determinations are reasoned, we reject that argument. Claimant does
not otherwise challenge the evidence supporting the WCJ’s decision except for a single
conclusory assertion that the WCJ “improperly considered [Claimant’s] pre-injury
condition in ignoring the context of the entire medical record and medical testimony.”
(Claimant’s Br. at 15.) Not only is that argument fatally undeveloped, but it also is
meritless as far as it goes. The WCJ thoroughly considered the entire record and, as
we have discussed, made reasoned credibility determinations regarding why the
testimony of Claimant and her medical expert were not persuasive. The WCJ
14
legitimately considered the facts that Claimant did not disclose her pre-injury back
condition throughout the proceedings below and that Dr. Bailey did not review the
medical records associated with that condition in making his findings. Those findings
are based on substantial evidence in the record and, accordingly, are valid and binding
on appeal.
In sum, because none of Claimant’s issues on appeal have merit, we affirm
the Board.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
15
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Amanda Bailey, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 170 C.D. 2022
:
Pyramid Health Holdings, LLC :
(Workers’ Compensation :
Appeal Board), :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2024, it is ORDERED that the
February 1, 2022 order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge