Petition seeking 42 percent increase in permanency denied.

The medical evidence showed that following her work injury, the claimant had a left knee arthroscopic surgery in 2010 and a similar procedure of the right knee later that same year. The claimant was out of work for about eight weeks following the first surgery and never returned to work with the employer following the second surgery. Eventually, the claimant had left knee replacement surgery on June 29, 2016, but testified that it did not relieve her pain. The Board stated that there was simply no objective evidence that the claimant’s condition had worsened following the knee replacement surgery as to warrant any increase in her permanency rating. To the contrary, the evidence showed that the claimant’s condition had remained substantially the same following the 2016 left knee total replacement surgery. Therefore, the Board concluded that the claimant had not met her burden of proof since there was no additional permanency impairment to the left lower extremity. The claimant’s DACD petition was accordingly dismissed. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2019}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}