S. Paolucci v. WCAB (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Steven Paolucci,                                :
    Petitioner        :
    :
    v.                              :    No. 2075 C.D. 2015
    :    Submitted: March 11, 2016
    Workers' Compensation Appeal                    :
    Board (Exelon Generation                        :
    Company, LLC),                                  :
    Respondent               :
    BEFORE:         HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
    HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE SIMPSON1                               FILED: September 16, 2016
    Steven Paolucci (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the
    Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that modified a Workers'
    Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) order granting his claim petition for work-related
    binaural hearing loss under Section 306(c)(8) of the Workers’ Compensation Act
    (Act).2 Claimant contends the Board erred in modifying the WCJ’s order awarding
    him benefits based on a 20.9% binaural hearing loss to an award based on an
    11.3% binaural hearing loss. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the Board’s
    order and remand for further proceedings.
    1
    This case was reassigned to the author on July 11, 2016.
    2
    Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §513(8).
    Claimant began working for PECO, which is now a subsidiary of
    Exelon Generation Company, LLC. (Employer), in October 1971.              Claimant
    retired in January 2012. In July 2011, Claimant filed a claim petition alleging he
    sustained a work-related hearing loss in both ears as a result of exposure to loud
    noise while in the course of his employment.
    Before the WCJ, Claimant testified that between 1971 and 1991, he
    worked for Employer in power plants as a mechanics’ helper and mechanic before
    working as a rigger for the pipe fitters and welders. He stated that in 1991, he
    began repairing turbines at different plants, working up to 10 to 12 hours per day.
    He worked as a part planner and worker from 2002 to 2008, and he retired in
    January 2012. Thereafter, he returned to work as a sub-contractor where he is not
    exposed to noise.
    Claimant explained that the plants were usually running while he was
    working and it was very loud in the areas he worked. He testified the loudest
    noises emanated from the water feed pumps for the turbines. It was so loud that
    the workers shouted to communicate and he sometimes felt numb.           Claimant
    experienced ringing in his ears at the end of the day, which subsided when he went
    home.   However, it lasted longer and longer as he aged.         The noise in the
    workplace was so loud Claimant told his bosses the noise “is killing us.” WCJ
    Op., 1/29/14, Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 2c.
    Claimant explained that he began to use rubber and foam earplugs in
    the mid-1980s and that they were fairly accessible by the 1990s. He testified the
    2
    workers could still hear each other with earplugs in place when they talked loudly
    or screamed. He stated he had ringing in his ears by the time Employer made
    earplugs available.
    Claimant testified he first began to notice hearing difficulties in the
    late 1980s and that he could not hear his co-workers. He began lip reading at
    work. He still has trouble hearing family members and he sets the volume on the
    television too high for the other people at his house. He has not seen any doctors
    for his hearing problems other than Dr. Steven Ladenheim (Claimant’s Expert) and
    Dr. Lee Rowe (Employer’s Expert) as part of these proceedings. Claimant mows
    his lawn occasionally. He listened to rock and roll music when he was younger,
    and his hearing loss did not worsen since his retirement.
    Claimant presented the deposition testimony of his Expert, a board
    certified otolaryngologist. Claimant’s Expert testified Claimant’s ears, nose and
    throat were normal upon examination. He performed an audiogram that showed
    Claimant had bilateral mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss. He reviewed a
    1977 baseline audiogram, which did not reveal a significant hearing loss, and an
    audiometric record.
    Claimant’s Expert explained that normal hearing is within 0 to 20
    decibels and that Claimant’s hearing is well below those boundaries. He testified
    that both bone and air conduction studies must be reviewed to determine whether
    noise exposure is the cause of a hearing loss. Claimant’s Expert’s audiometric
    testing was consistent with Claimant’s record over the years and showed an 11.3%
    3
    loss.       Claimant’s Expert opined Claimant has permanent and irreversible
    sensorineural hearing loss based on his review of Claimant’s history, his physical
    examination and his many years of treating patients with diseases of the ear. He
    believed Claimant’s total and cumulative noise exposure at work contributed to
    and caused his bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
    Claimant’s Expert reviewed Employer’s Expert’s report and stated he
    does not disagree with Employer’s Expert’s finding that Claimant suffers from a
    20.9% hearing loss.            He explained the difference in decibels between the 3
    audiograms can be attributed to test-to-test variability, and that the 9% differential
    between his audiogram and Employer’s Expert’s is 6 decibels in each of the
    pertinent frequencies.3
    3
    Claimant’s Expert testified, in relevant part:
    Q.      I’d like you to comment on [Employer’s Expert’s] findings
    and opinions and explain to the [WCJ] what you agree with or
    disagree with.
    A.      Well, the first thing I agree with is he did a history,
    physical examination, and audiogram involving [Claimant]. His
    audiogram has different findings than mine in terms of the
    percentage of loss. However, again, the shape and configuration of
    the audiograms are consistent and the difference in loss can be
    attributed to test-to-test variability. That is not uncommon.
    Some of the things I disagree about –
    Q.      Before we get there, he had a finding of 20.9 percent; is
    that correct?
    A.      Yes.
    Q.      And do you disagree with that conclusion?
    A.     No, I do not disagree with the conclusion. As I mentioned,
    his audiogram is of the same configuration as the audiogram that
    was done in my office, and the difference in percent of hearing loss
    (Footnote continued on next page…)
    4
    However, Claimant’s Expert testified he disagreed with Employer’s
    Expert’s conclusion that Claimant’s hearing loss is age-related and that noise
    exposure was a minimally contributing factor to the hearing loss. He opined there
    is no way to distinguish the percentage of hearing loss attributable to age,
    (continued…)
    from all three audiograms may be attributed to what we refer to as
    test-to-test variability.
    Q.       How much variability do you need in order to get that
    difference of a percentage?
    A.       The difference in percentage is 9 percent. So you would
    need a difference of 6 decibels in each of the four pertinent
    frequencies. 6 decibels is an extremely small level of sound.
    ***
    Q.       You testified on direct that he had – when he had I guess
    his exit audiogram at the time he retired in 2011, they showed a
    hearing loss of about 13.1 percent?
    A.       Yes.
    Q.       By the time of your audiogram [in] 2012, you found a
    hearing loss of 11.3 percent?
    A.       That’s correct.
    Q.       And that, I guess, is within the statistical differentiation of
    these exams?
    A.       That’s correct, yes.
    Q.       You would agree with me that any hearing loss after he left
    [Employer] couldn’t be related to noise exposure, correct?
    A.       I would agree with that, yes.
    Q.       And the only number that you can conclusively testify to
    with a reasonable degree of medical certainty is your own
    audiogram of 11.3 percent, correct?
    A.       I can certainly attest to my audiogram within a reasonable
    degree of medical certainty. In reading [Employer’s Expert’s]
    report, he states that this was done by a certified audiologist, it was
    done within the boundaries of an approved booth, so I can certainly
    say that his audiogram was accurate.
    Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 5a-6a, 7a-8a.
    5
    hypertension and hyperlipidemia, and that smoking did not significantly contribute
    to Claimant’s hearing loss. Claimant’s Expert further opined there is no evidence
    that childhood disease played any part in the hearing loss.
    Claimant’s Expert also disagreed with             Employer’s     Expert’s
    suggestion that Claimant’s audiograms do not show a notch at 3,000, 4,000, or
    6,000 decibels, meaning that the hearing is worse at those frequencies, and that
    notching disappears over time as hearing loss progresses in other frequencies.
    Claimant’s Expert examined a 1986 audiogram showing a possible notch at 6,000
    decibels in both ears, but 1987, 1988 and 1989 tests did not show notching. He
    agreed that Claimant’s 2007 audiogram showed only a 2.5% hearing loss, and that
    a 2012 audiogram showed an 11.3% hearing loss. He also agreed that any hearing
    loss after Claimant left his employment would not be related to work noise
    exposure. Nevertheless, Claimant’s Expert opined within a reasonable degree of
    medical certainty that Claimant’s noise exposure while working for Employer was
    either a total cause of Claimant’s hearing loss or a substantial contributing factor to
    the hearing loss.
    Employer presented the deposition testimony of its Expert, a diplomat
    of the American Board of Otolaryngology. Employer’s Expert testified that in
    conjunction with his physical examination of Claimant, he reviewed Claimant’s
    medical records and audiometric testing. Employer’s Expert stated a 1977 baseline
    audiogram showed evidence of mild high frequency sensorineural hearing loss in
    the left ear at 6,000 cycles per second, and that all other frequencies were normal
    in both ears. A 1987 audiogram showed mild high frequency hearing loss at 6,000
    6
    and 8,000 cycles per second in the right ear and moderate loss in the left ear at the
    same levels, and there was no evidence of a characteristic occupationally-induced
    hearing loss notch.         Employer’s Expert testified that a 1997 audiometric test
    showed further progression of hearing loss in the 6,000 and 8,000 frequencies with
    no evidence of notching, and Claimant’s binaural hearing handicap remained at
    0%. He stated that a 2007 audiometric test showed hearing loss in both ears in all
    frequencies except at 6,000 cycles per second in the left ear and 4,000 and 6,000
    cycles per second in the right ear, and that Claimant’s binaural hearing handicap
    was now 2.5%. Employer’s Expert also stated that additional audiometric testing
    between 2007 and 2011 showed further progression of hearing loss in both ears at
    6,000, which is consistent with age-related hearing loss or presbycusis.
    Employer’s Expert examined Claimant after his retirement in 2012
    and had audiometric testing performed, which showed bilateral moderate low
    frequency sensory hearing loss that dropped to severe high frequency hearing loss.
    He stated that Claimant’s binaural hearing handicap was 20.9% under the
    American Medical Association (AMA) Guidelines which represented a significant
    increase from prior testing at 13.1%.4                He explained that this was significant
    4
    Specifically, Employer’s Expert testified in relevant part:
    I performed a physical examination which included his
    ears, and this was entirely within normal limits. There was no
    evidence of any scar tissue, wax obstruction.
    I then had audiometric testing performed by a board
    certified audiologist under my direction which was in a sound
    dampened and calibrated booth pursuant to OSHA and ANSI
    specifications.
    Q.      What did you find as a result of that audiometric testing?
    (Footnote continued on next page…)
    7
    because hearing loss does not continue to worsen after removal from the noise
    environment. Employer’s Expert opined it was highly unlikely that any of the
    20.9% hearing loss is related to occupational noise.
    The WCJ made the following relevant findings regarding the medical
    testimony:
    7.    I have carefully reviewed the medical evidence
    presented in this matter and find that the testimony of
    [Claimant’s Expert] is more credible than the testimony
    of [Employer’s Expert]. [Claimant’s Expert’s] testimony
    is supported by Claimant’s audiometric test results and is
    consistent with Claimant’s credible testimony regarding
    the progression of his hearing loss. [Claimant’s Expert]
    credibly testified that Claimant did not have hearing loss
    (continued…)
    A.      What I found was that he had a bilateral moderate low
    frequency sensory hearing loss that dropped to severe high
    frequency loss. His discrimination was 100 percent in both ears at
    loud conversation level.
    What that means is that the audiologist will give him a
    word and he has to repeat it and he was able to repeat 100 percent
    of those words. This was delivered at a loud conversation level,
    not a shouting level but a loud level and this is in a soundproof
    booth.
    I was able to calculate his binaural hearing handicap
    pursuant to the AMA Guidelines, and that was 20.9 percent.
    Q.      And Doctor, how did that compare to his handicap at the
    time he retired in October of 2011?
    A.      It was up significantly. His handicap in 2011 was 13.1
    percent and this represents almost 100 percent increase. And this
    is attributable to the fact that he had an increase in those
    frequencies[,] in the low frequencies[,] that are used to compute
    the AMA Guideline formula.
    R.R. at 9a-10a.
    8
    upon beginning work with [Employer] in 1977, that
    Claimant’s tests did show a work-related notch in 1986,
    and that such notching disappears over time as hearing
    loss progresses at other frequencies. [Claimant’s Expert]
    also credibly explained that hearing loss continues after
    the first 10 to 15 years of exposure, although at a lower
    rate of progression. [Employer’s Expert’s] testimony is
    less credible, given that he agreed that Claimant was
    working in an environment with hazardous noise as
    defined by OSHA,[5] and that he could not demonstrate
    any hearing impairment at or prior to the time of
    Claimant’s employment [with Employer].
    8.     On the basis of the evidence accepted above, I find
    that as of January 17, 2012, Claimant has sustained a
    permanent hearing loss caused by long term exposure to
    hazardous occupational noise while working for
    Employer.       I find that Claimant had no hearing
    impairment from non-occupational causes established at
    or prior to the time of employment with Employer. I find
    that Claimant[] has sustained a 20.9 percent binaural
    hearing loss as determined by audiogram testing which
    conformed to OSHA standards.
    F.F. Nos. 7-8. Based on these findings, the WCJ concluded Claimant met his
    burden of establishing a permanent occupational hearing loss under Section
    306(8)(c) of the Act and awarded specific loss benefits of $888.00 per week for
    54.34 weeks (20.9% x 260 weeks). Id. at 9, 10.
    On appeal to the Board, Employer did not contest the WCJ’s grant of
    Claimant’s claim petition. Rather, Employer argued the WCJ’s determination that
    Claimant suffered a 20.9% binaural hearing loss was not supported by substantial
    evidence because the WCJ found Claimant’s Expert’s testimony credible and
    5
    The Occupational Health and Safety Administration is an agency of the U.S.
    Department of Labor.
    9
    rejected Employer’s Expert’s testimony as not credible, and Claimant’s Expert
    testified Claimant only suffered an 11.3% work-related hearing loss.
    Ultimately, the Board modified the calculation of Claimant’s specific
    loss benefits from those for a 20.9% binaural hearing loss to those for an 11.3%
    binaural hearing loss. In so doing, the Board explained (with emphasis added):
    [T]he WCJ accepted the opinion of [Claimant’s Expert]
    in its entirety and he opined that Claimant sustained a
    work-related hearing loss and he could attest to his
    audiogram testing result, resulting in an 11.3%
    impairment, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
    While he indicated that [Employer’s Expert’s] audiogram
    was appropriately performed and he did not disagree with
    it, he did not adopt the opinion as his own. The WCJ
    rejected [Employer’s Expert’s] testimony in its entirety
    and did not parse out an exception for [Employer’s
    Expert’s] test results. In short, there is no credible
    medical opinion establishing that Claimant sustained a
    20.9% work-related hearing impairment. As such, we
    will modify the Decision and Order to reflect that,
    consistent with the credible testimony of [Claimant’s
    Expert], Claimant sustained an 11.3% work-related
    hearing loss. Benefits are to be calculated consistent
    with that determination.
    Bd. Op., 10/7/15, at 8-9.
    On appeal here, Claimant contends the Board erred in modifying the
    WCJ’s calculation of his specific loss benefits because the WCJ accepted as
    credible Claimant’s Expert’s testimony regarding the work-relatedness of
    Claimant’s hearing loss, but accepted as credible Employer’s Expert’s testimony
    regarding the percentage of hearing loss based on an audiogram that conformed to
    10
    OSHA standards.6        Therefore, Claimant argues, there is substantial competent
    medical evidence supporting the WCJ’s determination that Claimant suffered a
    work-related 20.9% binaural hearing loss.
    Further, Claimant asserts two separate facts exist. First, the WCJ
    found, based on Claimant’s Expert’s testimony, that Claimant’s exposure to
    occupational noise caused his hearing loss. F.F Nos. 7, 8. Second, with respect to
    the extent of Claimant’s hearing loss, Claimant stressed that neither expert’s
    audiogram addressed the work-relatedness of the loss.                Rather, the expert’s
    separate opinions establish the work-relatedness of the hearing loss.
    Claimant also asserts the Board erred in determining the WCJ
    accepted Claimant’s Expert’s testimony in its entirety and rejected Employer’s
    Expert’s testimony in its entirety.         Rather, Claimant argues, the WCJ found
    Employer’s Expert less credible as to causation.
    To begin our analysis, we recognize that in a workers’ compensation
    proceeding, the WCJ is the ultimate finder of fact. Hayden v. Workmen’s Comp.
    Appeal Bd. (Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.), 
    479 A.2d 631
     (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
    As the ultimate fact-finder, the WCJ is entitled to accept or reject the testimony of
    any witness, including a medical witness, in whole or in part.                   Wheeling–
    Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sesco), 
    828 A.2d 1189
    ,
    6
    This Court’s review is limited to determining whether there was a violation of
    constitutional rights, errors of law committed, or a violation of appeal board procedures, and
    whether necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. Lehigh County Vo-
    Tech School v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wolfe), 
    652 A.2d 797
     (Pa. 1995).
    11
    1193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). In a case involving a claim for specific loss benefits
    based on work-related binaural hearing loss, it is within the WCJ’s prerogative to
    accept the opinion of one physician as to the causal relationship between a
    claimant’s hearing loss and his occupational noise exposure and to accept the
    opinion of another physician as to the percentage of hearing impairment. Helvetia
    Coal Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Learn), 
    913 A.2d 326
     (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2006).
    Section 308(c)(8)(iv) of the Act states that “[t]he percentage of
    hearing impairment for which compensation may be payable shall be established
    solely by audiogram,” and “[t]he audiometric testing must conform to OSHA
    Occupational Standards . . . .” 77 P.S. §513(c)(8)(iv). In Sesco, we determined the
    WCJ did not err in rejecting an employer’s pre-employment audiogram that did not
    meet OSHA standards “[b]ecause the Act requires that the WCJ consider only
    those audiograms that meet OSHA standards when determining whether [a
    c]laimant sustained a hearing loss due to exposure to hazardous occupational noise
    . . . .” Sesco, 828 A.2d at 1194.
    With respect to Finding of Fact No. 7, we agree with Claimant that the
    Board erred in determining the WCJ rejected Employer’s Expert’s testimony in its
    entirety. Rather, the WCJ found Employer’s Expert’s testimony less credible as to
    causation. In particular, the WCJ found: “[Employer’s Expert’s] testimony is less
    credible, given that he agreed that Claimant was working in an environment with
    hazardous noise as defined by OSHA, and that he could not demonstrate any
    hearing impairment at or prior to the time of Claimant’s employment [with
    12
    Employer].” F.F. No. 7 (emphasis added). As we recognized in Helvetia Coal
    Co., it is within the WCJ’s prerogative in a hearing loss case to accept the
    claimant’s medical expert’s opinion as to causation and to accept the result of the
    audiogram conducted by the employer’s medical expert.
    In Finding of Fact No. 8, the WCJ found Claimant “sustained a 20.9%
    binaural hearing loss as determined by audiogram testing which conformed to
    OSHA standards.” WCJ Op., F.F. No. 8. As noted above, Claimant’s Expert
    testified he did not disagree with Employer’s Expert’s finding of a 20% binaural
    hearing loss. R.R. at 5a-6a. Nevertheless, Claimant’s Expert could not testify
    from personal knowledge about another expert’s testing procedures, and he could
    not supply the foundation testimony that the Employer’s Expert’s test was OSHA-
    compliant.   Instead, Claimant’s Expert merely repeated statements made by
    Employer’s Expert regarding how the test was conducted. See R.R. at 8a.
    Pursuant to Section 306(8)(i) of the Act, compensation for permanent
    binaural hearing loss caused by long-term exposure to hazardous occupational
    noise is determined by multiplying the percentage of hearing loss as calculated
    under the AMA’s Impairment Guides by 260 weeks.               77 P.S. §513(8)(i).
    Compensation is payable at 66 2/3% of wages during this number of weeks. Id.
    Although the WCJ explained here that he found Claimant’s Expert more credible
    as to causation, he did not distinctly explain why he found Claimant’s Expert less
    credible as to the percentage of Claimant’s hearing loss.
    13
    Consequently, we conclude we must remand this case in order for the
    WCJ to render more detailed findings, based on the existing record, as to whether
    he accepted Employer’s Expert’s testimony (that Claimant suffered a 20.9%
    hearing loss) as more credible than Claimant’s Expert’s testimony (that Claimant
    suffered an 11.3% hearing loss). In so doing, we ask the WCJ to clearly identify
    his reasons for reaching his determinations as the actual percentage of Claimant’s
    hearing loss. A remand to the WCJ is appropriate where a factual issue needs to be
    resolved and can be easily rectified by making additional findings. Trudnak v.
    Workmen's Comp Appeal Board (Lucky Strike Coal Co.), 
    629 A.2d 254
     (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 1993).
    For these reasons, we vacate the order of the Board and remand with
    instructions for a further remand to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent
    with this opinion.
    ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
    14
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Steven Paolucci,                          :
    Petitioner     :
    :
    v.                           :   No. 2075 C.D. 2015
    :
    Workers' Compensation Appeal              :
    Board (Exelon Generation                  :
    Company, LLC),                            :
    Respondent         :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2016, the order of the
    Workers' Compensation Appeal Board is VACATED and this case is
    REMANDED with instructions for a further remand to the Workers’
    Compensation Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.
    Jurisdiction is relinquished.
    ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Steven Paolucci,                               :
    : No. 2075 C.D. 2015
    Petitioner        : Submitted: March 11, 2016
    :
    v.                       :
    :
    Workers' Compensation Appeal                   :
    Board (Exelon Generation                       :
    Company, LLC),                                 :
    :
    Respondent        :
    BEFORE:       HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
    HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
    CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
    BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                              FILED: September 16, 2016
    Although I agree with the majority’s determination that the Workers’
    Compensation Appeal Board’s (Board) order should be reversed, I do not agree
    that the matter should be remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) to
    make additional findings of fact. Rather, I believe that the WCJ has already made
    sufficient findings to support the award of benefits and for this Court to conduct
    effective appellate review in this case.1
    1
    Section 422(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736,
    as amended, 77 P.S. §834, states, in relevant part, that “[a]ll 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 explains the rationale for the
    decisions . . . .”
    As the majority acknowledges, in a case involving a claim for specific
    loss benefits due to work-related binaural hearing loss, the WCJ has the
    prerogative to accept the opinion of one physician as to the causal relationship
    between a claimant’s hearing loss and his occupational noise exposure and to
    accept the opinion of another physician as to the percentage of hearing impairment.
    Helvetia Coal Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Learn), 
    913 A.2d 326
    , 330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Additionally, the majority correctly notes that
    in Wheeling–Pittsburgh Steel Corporation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal
    Board (Sesco), 
    828 A.2d 1189
    , 1192 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), appeal denied, 
    864 A.2d 531
     (Pa. 2004), this Court explained that a WCJ did not err in rejecting an
    employer’s pre-employment audiogram which did not meet OSHA standards
    “[b]ecause the Act[2] requires that the WCJ consider only those audiograms that
    meet OSHA standards when determining whether Claimant sustained a hearing
    loss due to exposure to hazardous occupational noise . . . .”
    In this case, the only audiogram that the WCJ found conforms to
    OSHA standards as required by Section 308(c)(8)(iv) of the Act is that conducted
    by Employer’s expert, Dr. Rowe, and it shows that Claimant suffers from a 20.9%
    hearing loss. WCJ 1/29/14 Decision at 9. There is no finding that the audiogram
    conducted by Claimant’s expert, Dr. Ladenheim, indicating that Claimant suffers
    from an 11.3% hearing loss, conforms to those standards. As a result, the WCJ
    was not required to consider the results of Dr. Ladenheim’s audiogram because it
    is not competent evidence in determining whether Claimant sustained a
    2
    Section 308(c)(8)(iv) of the Act, 77 P.S. §513(c)(8)(iv), states that “[t]he percentage of
    hearing impairment for which compensation may be payable shall be established solely by
    audiogram,” and “[t]he audiometric testing must conform to OSHA Occupational Standards
    . . . .”
    MHW - 2
    compensable hearing loss under Section 308(c)(8)(iv). Sesco. The WCJ properly
    accepted as credible the results of Dr. Rowe’s audiogram which meets OSHA
    standards and shows that Claimant has a 20.9% binaural hearing impairment.
    Helvetia Coal Company.
    Moreover, there is substantial record evidence supporting the WCJ’s
    findings. Dr. Ladenheim explained that “[i]n reading Dr. Rowe’s report, he states
    that this was done by a certified audiologist, it was done within the boundaries of
    an approved booth, so I can certainly say that his audiogram was accurate;” Dr.
    Ladenheim did “not disagree with [Dr. Rowe’s] conclusion” that Claimant had a
    20.9% hearing loss; and Dr. Rowe’s audiogram “is of the same configuration that
    was done in my office, and the difference in percent of hearing loss from all three
    audiograms may be attributed to what we refer to as test-to-test variability.”
    Reproduced Record at 6a, 8a.       Likewise, Dr. Rowe explained that he “had
    audiometric testing performed by a board certified audiologist under [his] direction
    which was in a sound dampened and calibrated booth pursuant to OSHA and ANSI
    specifications,” and that he calculated Claimant’s “binaural hearing handicap
    pursuant to the AMA Guidelines, and that was 20.9 percent.” Id. at 9a, 10a.
    Consequently, the WCJ acted within his authority when he found that
    Claimant suffered a hearing loss of 20.9%, and the Board clearly erred in
    modifying the WCJ’s decision and directing the calculation of Claimant’s benefits
    based upon the results of an audiogram that is not competent under Section
    308(c)(8)(iv). Furthermore, the WCJ was not required to explain why he did not
    consider or accept as credible the incompetent results of Dr. Ladenheim’s
    audiogram. Sesco; see also Acme Markets, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal
    Board (Brown), 
    890 A.2d 21
    , 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (“A decision is ‘reasoned’ for
    MHW - 3
    purposes of Section 422 if it allows for adequate review by this Court under
    applicable review standards . . . . A reasoned decision does not require the WCJ to
    give a line-by-line analysis of each statement by each witness, explaining how a
    particular statement affected the ultimate decision.”) (citation omitted).3
    Accordingly, unlike the majority, I would reverse the Board’s order
    and reinstate the WCJ’s decision.
    MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    3
    The majority’s reliance on Trudnak v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Lucky
    Strike Coal Co.), 
    629 A.2d 254
    , 255-56 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) to support remand is misplaced
    because in that case:
    [T]he first [WCJ]’s findings of fact were not specific enough to
    meet the standards of appellate review. In fact, the referee did not
    even summarize the evidence. He failed to discuss any of the
    medical testimony and made no credibility determinations. Aside
    from possible inferences from the result, the Board was unable to
    determine what evidence the [WCJ] accepted and what evidence
    he rejected in reaching the conclusion that Claimant was eligible
    for benefits.
    As outlined above, the WCJ’s findings of fact in this case are sufficiently specific to support the
    award of benefits and to conduct appellate review. The WCJ properly accepted as credible Dr.
    Ladenheim’s opinion that Claimant’s hearing impairment is work-related; properly rejected as
    not credible Dr. Rowe’s contrary opinion regarding causation; and properly accepted as credible
    the only competent results of an audiogram which shows that Claimant has a 20.9% binaural
    hearing impairment. Helvetia Coal Company.
    MHW - 4