A coal miner injured while shoveling out of a massive spill presented sufficient evidence to establish the extent and duration of his disability and its causation, the Commonwealth Court has ruled in affirming a workers' compensation determination in his favor.

In a memorandum filed Oct. 24, a unanimous three-judge panel found that Jay W. Johnson “established all of the necessary elements to support his claim petition” and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board did not err in affirming a workers' compensation judge's decision.

According to the ruling, written by Judge Patricia A. McCullough, Johnson was a full-time laborer in the coal industry beginning in 1974, working underground as a miner until 1999 when he began working as a production and maintenance laborer in the Bailey Production Plant. In 2014, he filed a claim petition alleging that he suffered a work injury when he aggravated a pre-existing degenerative condition in his wrist.

Johnson claimed that he met with Dr. Dean Sotereanos in 2012 for wrist treatment relating to his job working on large equipment and shoveling coal. A coal spill at the plant in June 2014 left him shoveling coal for four or five hours, and his shovel got caught on a bolt, causing his wrist to bend back and allegedly aggravating the injury. He underwent wrist surgery the following month, and he claimed his wrist “hurts all the time and that he has very limited motion,” McCullough said. Sotereanos testified that Johnson has symptomatic left wrist osteoarthritis, known as a SLAC wrist condition, and could never return to a heavy laboring position, and that there was a nexus between the labor he performed and the degenerative condition.

Dr. Trenton Gause, testifying on behalf of Johnson's employer, Consol PA Coal Company/Bailey Mine Extension, said the condition was unrelated to his labor, but the workers' compensation judge granted the petition and the board affirmed.

The employer argued on appeal that the board failed to make findings of fact regarding the extent and duration of Johnson's disability, erred in awarding him disability benefits, and failed to apply the proper principles in determining his medical evidence was sufficient. But McCullough noted that the workers' compensation judge found both Johnson and Sotereanos' testimony more credible than Gause's, and that by identifying that work activities prior to his surgery aggravated a pre-existing condition, “the WJC did indeed make findings of fact that established the extent and duration of disability, as well as its causation in the nature of an aggravation of claimant's pre-existing arthritic condition.”

As to the employer's contention that Johnson's disability was the result of his pre-existing condition, McCullough pointed to Sotereanos' testimony on cross-examination that the arthritis progressed more rapidly than it would have in a different profession, such as a beautician.

While the employer cited the state Supreme Court's 1998 ruling in Bethlehem Steel v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Baxter) for the argument that an employee is not entitled to benefits after fully recovering from an exacerbated pre-existing condition, McCullough noted that the Baxter court also said that the claimant would have been eligible for benefits had he introduced medical evidence that his condition “'resulted in an ongoing condition.'”

“Here, Dr. Sotereanos testified that claimant was likely to suffer more injuries if he returned to his pre-injury position,” McCullough said. “However, Dr. Sotereanos stated that this was because claimant's surgery changed the anatomy of his wrist. … Unlike in Baxter, the anatomy of claimant's wrist had been permanently changed, rendering him unable to return to his prior position as a heavy-duty laborer, and claimant's condition here never returned to baseline.”

McCullough also rejected the employer's claim that Sotereanos did not have a clear understanding of Johnson's job functions, noting that the doctor clearly understood the nature of Johnson's work in an above-ground plant, rather than a mine, and nonetheless believed the work to be a contributing factor in his condition.

“The WCJ applied the proper legal principles in determining that claimant's competent medical evidence was sufficient to support an award of ongoing disability benefits,” McCullough said. “Thus, claimant established all of the necessary elements to support his claim petition.”

Neither Toni Glaeser of Thompson Calkins & Sutter, who represented the employer, nor Douglas Williams of Abes Baumann, who represented Johnson, returned calls for comment.