Despite the opinion issues in Sears Logistic Services v. WCAB (Preston), __ A.2d__ (Pa. Cmwlth., No 631 C.D. 2007, filed on December 5, 2007), nine days later, the Commonwealth Court issues Visteon System v. WCAB (Steglik), __ A.2d__ (Pa. Cmwlth., No 1179 C.D. 2007, filed on December 15, 2007), which seems to take a broader view of when a judge can expand recognized work injuries in the absence of a review petition. In this case, the claimant's compensable work injury was defined by a supplemental agreement and a judicial decision on a claim petition as a left shoulder sprain/strain, chronic cervical strain and sprain, cervical spondylosis with muscle spasm secondary to the strain and sprain and tendinopathy of the left shoulder. In a subsequent termination petition, a workers' compensation judge found that the claimant suffers from radial neuropathy and ulnar neuritis at both elbows, a long thoracic nerve injury, and involvment of her brachial plexus nerve. The Court reasoned that this expansion was appropriate by noting that "while these new problems [sic] areas may include Claimant's arms, elbows and hands, said problems stem from Claimant's original work injuries."
Clearly, in light of Sears Logistic Services and Visteon Systems, workers' compensation judges are allowed to expand recognized work injuries in the absence of a review petition. However, the limitations of when they are empowered to do so have still not been completely defined. Practically speaking when handling a case where the new injuries seem to be a different body part and/or were not in existence at the time the injury was recognized, it is best to file a review petition.
