AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Worker-Appellant suffered a left eyebrow laceration and right knee injury, for which she received medical treatment until June 26, 2009. The Worker-Appellant and her healthcare provider, Dr. Knaus, contended that she did not reach maximum medical improvement (MMI) until February 24, 2011, and thus was entitled to temporary total disability benefits (TTD) due to being out of work for more than seven days.

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, David L. Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge: The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) determined that the Worker-Appellant reached MMI on June 26, 2009, and was not entitled to TTD benefits beyond this date.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the determination of MMI on June 26, 2009, was erroneous and that she did not reach MMI until February 24, 2011, thereby entitling her to TTD benefits due to her inability to work for more than seven days.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker-Appellant reached MMI on June 26, 2009, or on February 24, 2011.
• Whether the Worker-Appellant is entitled to TTD benefits due to not reaching MMI until February 24, 2011.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s order that the Worker-Appellant reached MMI on June 26, 2009, and was not entitled to TTD benefits beyond this date.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge concurring): The Court found that the WCJ was justified in determining the Worker-Appellant reached MMI on June 26, 2009, based on the last date of her treatment and the medical records available. The Court also found that the Worker-Appellant's continuing medical conditions were due to pre- and post-accident injuries not exacerbated by the accident in question. The Court concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the WCJ’s decision and that the Worker-Appellant was not entitled to TTD benefits as she argued. The Court emphasized that it is not their role to reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations, which are responsibilities of the trier of fact.