When Does an Aggravation of a Preexisting Condition End in PA Workers’ Compensation?

Just because an injured worker had some problems with a body part before a work injury does not preclude a “new injury” in a PA workers’ compensation case.  The concept of “aggravation” of a preexisting condition, a “new injury,” as compared to a “recurrence” of that condition, is central enough to the world of PA workers’ compensation that we devote an entire page of our website to discuss this concept.  It is a concept we often see in PA workers’ compensation litigation.  This issue comes up both at the initial stage of an injury, as well as when there is an allegation that the “aggravation” has ended.

It is with this preface that we discuss a recent unreported decision from the Commonwealth Court of PA, Rodolfo Perez-Martinez v. Dart Container Corporation of Pennsylvania (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board).  This case deals with how and when an “aggravation of a preexisting condition” ends for the purposes of PA workers’ comp.

As we have previously discussed on this blog, “unreported” decisions from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania are of limited value in PA workers’ compensation cases, since they are not “precedential.”  That’s a fancy way of saying lower courts (including Workers’ Compensation Judges [WCJs]) are not bound by these unreported decisions.  However, unreported decisions are still of some value to us.  These decisions can still be “persuasive” to a WCJ.  Additionally, these decisions offer insights into the thinking of the Commonwealth Court, so as to help us understand how the Court may rule in a future case.

In the case we are discussing, the employer required all employees, including the injured worker, to wear steel-toed boots.  The injured worker filed a Claim Petition, alleging that the steel-toed boots caused his foot to swell, and caused a lump to develop.  The medical evidence showed that, by the time the injured worker testified, he no longer had any pain or symptoms in the foot, but that his doctor advised him to find a job that did not require the use of steel-toed boots.  The doctor offered by the injured worker testified that the injured worker had a preexisting foot type that caused his left foot to become inflamed with the use of steel-toed boots.

After hearing the evidence, the WCJ granted the Claim Petition for a closed period of time.  The WCJ found that the use of the steel-toed work boots did cause the inflammation (which was termed “sesamoiditis of the left foot”), but that the inflammation then fully resolved.  The prohibition on using steel-toed work boots in the future was not due to the work injury, but instead, due to the preexisting foot type.  No structural or anatomic change took place in the work injury.  Therefore, the WCJ terminated the benefits after this closed period of disability.

The injured worker appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), alleging that the WCJ erred by not finding the aggravation continued to cause the injured worker disability, since he could no longer be employed where he was required to wear steel-toed boots.  A decision was issued by the WCAB, affirming the WCJ.  The WCAB agreed with the WCJ that, since the “aggravation” did not cause any structural change to the condition, it was not the work injury that prevented the continuing issue with wearing steel-toed boots.  Granting the Claim Petition for a closed period, followed by a termination of benefits, was the correct result, said the WCAB.

Upon further appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the decision of the WCAB was also affirmed.  The Court reviewed the relevant case law and drew a clear distinction between the situations where the work injury directly caused the condition which prevented a return to employment, and the situations where, as here, the non-work-related condition was temporarily aggravated by work, and then returned back to baseline (so, it was again the non-work-related preexisting condition which prevents ongoing employment).  The Court, as did the WCAB, made clear that the WCJ found the work injury did not cause any real or structural change to the condition.

So, while this decision is not binding on WCJs, it provides both us, as attorneys representing injured workers, and the WCJs, some additional guidance on those “aggravation of preexisting condition” cases, which can become quite complicated.