Preview:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Robert Griffin, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Atlantic Express of Pa.), Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : No. 1410 C.D. 2008 : Submitted: December 12, 2008

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge1 HONORABLE JOHNNY J. BUTLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BUTLER

FILED: February 4, 2009

Robert Griffin (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the May 28, 2008 order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision to deny Claimant's petition for benefits. Claimant presents three issues for this Court's review: 1) whether the WCJ erred in finding Claimant did not sustain injury at work; 2) whether the WCJ erred in finding the witnesses of Atlantic Express of Pa. (Employer) credible; and 3) whether the WCJ erred in accepting medical testimony from Employer's witnesses who were not doctors. For reasons that follow, we affirm the Board's order.

The decision in this case was reached before January 1, 2009, when Judge Friedman assumed the status of senior judge.

1

Claimant, a bus driver for Employer, alleged he suffered injury during the course of his employment, when he was involved in an altercation with the Union Shop Steward, Mack Williams (Williams), on November 21, 2005. Claimant filed a claim petition on December 13, 2005. A hearing was held before the WCJ on January 30, 2006, at the end of which the WCJ gave both parties ninety days to depose their witnesses. Employer deposed seven witnesses and Claimant deposed none. In a decision circulated July 18, 2007, the WCJ denied Claimant's petition. Claimant appealed the WCJ's decision to the Board, and the Board affirmed the WCJ on May 28, 2008. Claimant appealed pro se to this Court.2 Claimant contends the WCJ erred in finding Claimant did not get hurt at work because two doctors' reports indicated Claimant suffered a left shoulder injury and one of the reports indicated the injury was caused at work.3 It is not disputed that Claimant suffered an injury to his left shoulder; the dispute concerns whether the injury occurred at work. In the instant case, Employer presented numerous witnesses who testified that Claimant had told them he had injured his arm/shoulder a week earlier in Las Vegas, See Deposition Testimony, August 15, 2006 (D.T.) at 11, 72;4 Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 78a, 139a; Milton Piner, Deposition Testimony, January 15, 2007 (Piner, D.T.) at 14; R.R. at 175a. In addition, Employer's
This Court's review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether the Claimant's constitutional rights were violated. Sysco Food Servs. of Phila. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sebastiano), 940 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 3 This Court notes, the cause of the injury was only indicated in the history given by Claimant. See WCJ Decision, Findings of Fact (FOF)

Download 1410cd08-2-4-09.pdf

Pennsylvania Law