SMITH-RIBNER, Judge.
Mario Caso appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that reversed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) and directed Caso to submit to an interview with a School District of Philadelphia (Employer) vocational counselor pursuant to Employer’s petition to compel Caso to undergo a physical examination or an expert interview. Caso contends that the Board erroneously determined that a Workers’ Compensation Judge has the authority to approve a vocational counselor for purposes of Section 306(b)(2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 512(2).2
Caso suffered a lumbar strain and right wrist contusion on February 26, 1998 while working for Employer, and he is currently receiving benefits pursuant to a notice of compensation payable dated March 30, 1998. Employer filed a Petition to Compel Expert Interview, alleging that Caso had refused or failed to appear for a vocational interview with Mr. Peter Lento, a certified rehabilitation counselor. Employer requested that the WCJ compel Caso to attend an interview with Lento.
After holding a hearing, the WCJ concluded that the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation has not compiled a list of vocational experts who are “approved by the Department” in accordance with Section 306(b)(2) of the Act; that Caso is not required to submit to a vocational inter[1080]*1080view with an individual who has not been approved; and that WCJs lack jurisdiction to approve vocational experts. The WCJ explained:
The intent of the Legislature, in essence, to allow only “pre-approved” individuals to conduct a vocational interview promotes “certainty” for all parties. A claimant could submit to a vocational interview with full knowledge the vocational expert was competent to perform the earning power assessment. An employer, moreover, could rely upon the opinion of the vocational expert with full knowledge a claimant in a modification/suspension proceeding could not challenge the legal competency of the individual performing the study.
WCJ’s decision, at p. 4.
The Board concluded that nothing in the Act requires the Bureau to compile a list of approved vocational experts. The Board interpreted Section 306(b)(2) of the Act as merely “requiring a vocational evaluator to possess a minimum level of expertise and professionalism necessary to conduct earning power assessment interviews.” Board’s opinion, at p. 4. The Board explained that the Bureau regulations found at 34 Pa.Code §§ 123.201 and 123.202 “clearly contemplate that a workers’ compensation judge will certify a particular consultant as an expert witness pursuant to the criteria set forth therein.” Id. Accordingly, the Board reversed the WCJ and ordered Caso to submit to a vocational interview with Lento.
The Court’s review of the Board’s order is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Russell v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Volkswagen of America), 121 Pa.Cmwlth. 436, 550 A.2d 1364 (1988). The Workers’ Compensation Act must be liberally construed to effectuate its humanitarian purposes with borderline interpretations resolved in favor of the injured employee. Hoffman v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Westmoreland Hosp.), 559 Pa. 655, 741 A.2d 1286 (1999). The Court defers to an agency’s interpretation of the law that the agency applies. Key v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Chestnut Hill Hospital), 673 A.2d 39 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). Deference, however, is not required where the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable. Nolan v. Department of Public Welfare, 673 A.2d 414 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996).
Section 306(b)(2) of the Act provides in relevant part:
“Earning power” shall be determined by the work the employe is capable of performing and shall be based upon expert opinion evidence which includes job listings with agencies of the department, private job placement agencies and advertisements in the usual employment area. ... In order to accurately assess the earning power of the employe, the insurer may require the employe to submit to an interview by an expert approved by the department and selected by the insurer.
(Emphasis added). Because the word “approved” is not defined by the Act, it must be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary usage. Section 1903(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a). To “approve” means “[t]o give formal sanction to; to confirm authoritatively.” Black’s Law Dictionary 98 (Seventh Ed.1999). Thus in ordinary usage an expert approved by the Department is one who has been formally sanctioned and confirmed authoritatively by the Department to assess an employee’s earning power.
[1081]*1081By its plain language, Section 306(b)(2) of the Act is intended to allow insurers to assess an employee’s earning power without recourse to a WCJ by requiring the employee to submit to a vocational interview with an expert selected by the insurer. The Section protects the employee by limiting the insurer’s choice of an expert to one approved by the Department. The Board, however, concluded that approval under Section 306(b)(2) can be accomplished by WCJ certification of a vocational expert after the interview has already taken place pursuant to the list of criteria set forth in Bureau regulations. The Board’s interpretation of Section 306(b)(2) is unreasonable for a number of reasons. First, the language of the Section clearly mandates that the vocational experts be approved by the Department prior to the time when the insurer requires the employee to submit to an interview by the expert. Therefore, a process by which a WCJ certifies the vocational expert after the insurer has required the employee to submit to the interview cannot reasonably satisfy Section 306(b)(2). The Court must presume that the legislature did not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable. See Section 1922(1) of the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1); Pelter v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 663 A.2d 844 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995).
Second, the Board’s interpretation effectively divests insurers of the authority granted to them by Section 306(b)(2). Instead of having the authority to require employees to submit to an interview, insurers must petition the WCJ to certify a vocational expert on a case-by-case basis. Third, the Bureau and WCJs are not synonymous with the Department. Although, as Employer correctly notes, the Bureau is part of the Department and has authority to promulgate regulations explaining and enforcing the Act on behalf of the Department, the Bureau has not promulgated a regulation authorizing WCJs to approve vocational experts on behalf of the Department.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SMITH-RIBNER, Judge.
Mario Caso appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that reversed the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) and directed Caso to submit to an interview with a School District of Philadelphia (Employer) vocational counselor pursuant to Employer’s petition to compel Caso to undergo a physical examination or an expert interview. Caso contends that the Board erroneously determined that a Workers’ Compensation Judge has the authority to approve a vocational counselor for purposes of Section 306(b)(2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 512(2).2
Caso suffered a lumbar strain and right wrist contusion on February 26, 1998 while working for Employer, and he is currently receiving benefits pursuant to a notice of compensation payable dated March 30, 1998. Employer filed a Petition to Compel Expert Interview, alleging that Caso had refused or failed to appear for a vocational interview with Mr. Peter Lento, a certified rehabilitation counselor. Employer requested that the WCJ compel Caso to attend an interview with Lento.
After holding a hearing, the WCJ concluded that the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation has not compiled a list of vocational experts who are “approved by the Department” in accordance with Section 306(b)(2) of the Act; that Caso is not required to submit to a vocational inter[1080]*1080view with an individual who has not been approved; and that WCJs lack jurisdiction to approve vocational experts. The WCJ explained:
The intent of the Legislature, in essence, to allow only “pre-approved” individuals to conduct a vocational interview promotes “certainty” for all parties. A claimant could submit to a vocational interview with full knowledge the vocational expert was competent to perform the earning power assessment. An employer, moreover, could rely upon the opinion of the vocational expert with full knowledge a claimant in a modification/suspension proceeding could not challenge the legal competency of the individual performing the study.
WCJ’s decision, at p. 4.
The Board concluded that nothing in the Act requires the Bureau to compile a list of approved vocational experts. The Board interpreted Section 306(b)(2) of the Act as merely “requiring a vocational evaluator to possess a minimum level of expertise and professionalism necessary to conduct earning power assessment interviews.” Board’s opinion, at p. 4. The Board explained that the Bureau regulations found at 34 Pa.Code §§ 123.201 and 123.202 “clearly contemplate that a workers’ compensation judge will certify a particular consultant as an expert witness pursuant to the criteria set forth therein.” Id. Accordingly, the Board reversed the WCJ and ordered Caso to submit to a vocational interview with Lento.
The Court’s review of the Board’s order is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Russell v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Volkswagen of America), 121 Pa.Cmwlth. 436, 550 A.2d 1364 (1988). The Workers’ Compensation Act must be liberally construed to effectuate its humanitarian purposes with borderline interpretations resolved in favor of the injured employee. Hoffman v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Westmoreland Hosp.), 559 Pa. 655, 741 A.2d 1286 (1999). The Court defers to an agency’s interpretation of the law that the agency applies. Key v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Chestnut Hill Hospital), 673 A.2d 39 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). Deference, however, is not required where the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable. Nolan v. Department of Public Welfare, 673 A.2d 414 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996).
Section 306(b)(2) of the Act provides in relevant part:
“Earning power” shall be determined by the work the employe is capable of performing and shall be based upon expert opinion evidence which includes job listings with agencies of the department, private job placement agencies and advertisements in the usual employment area. ... In order to accurately assess the earning power of the employe, the insurer may require the employe to submit to an interview by an expert approved by the department and selected by the insurer.
(Emphasis added). Because the word “approved” is not defined by the Act, it must be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary usage. Section 1903(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a). To “approve” means “[t]o give formal sanction to; to confirm authoritatively.” Black’s Law Dictionary 98 (Seventh Ed.1999). Thus in ordinary usage an expert approved by the Department is one who has been formally sanctioned and confirmed authoritatively by the Department to assess an employee’s earning power.
[1081]*1081By its plain language, Section 306(b)(2) of the Act is intended to allow insurers to assess an employee’s earning power without recourse to a WCJ by requiring the employee to submit to a vocational interview with an expert selected by the insurer. The Section protects the employee by limiting the insurer’s choice of an expert to one approved by the Department. The Board, however, concluded that approval under Section 306(b)(2) can be accomplished by WCJ certification of a vocational expert after the interview has already taken place pursuant to the list of criteria set forth in Bureau regulations. The Board’s interpretation of Section 306(b)(2) is unreasonable for a number of reasons. First, the language of the Section clearly mandates that the vocational experts be approved by the Department prior to the time when the insurer requires the employee to submit to an interview by the expert. Therefore, a process by which a WCJ certifies the vocational expert after the insurer has required the employee to submit to the interview cannot reasonably satisfy Section 306(b)(2). The Court must presume that the legislature did not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable. See Section 1922(1) of the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1); Pelter v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 663 A.2d 844 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995).
Second, the Board’s interpretation effectively divests insurers of the authority granted to them by Section 306(b)(2). Instead of having the authority to require employees to submit to an interview, insurers must petition the WCJ to certify a vocational expert on a case-by-case basis. Third, the Bureau and WCJs are not synonymous with the Department. Although, as Employer correctly notes, the Bureau is part of the Department and has authority to promulgate regulations explaining and enforcing the Act on behalf of the Department, the Bureau has not promulgated a regulation authorizing WCJs to approve vocational experts on behalf of the Department.
Employer argues that the Department authorized WCJs to approve vocational experts through Bureau regulations found at Subchapter C, Chapter 123, Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Code, 34 Pa.Code §§ 123.201-123.203. Subchapter C is entitled “Qualifications for Vocational Experts Approved by the Department,” and the regulations state in relevant part:
§ 123.201. Purpose.
This subchapter interprets provisions of the act which require the Department to approve experts who will conduct earning power assessment interviews under sections 306(b)(2) and 449 of the act (77 P.S. §§ 512(b)(2) and 1000.5). The experts contemplated by this sub-chapter are vocational evaluators.
§ 123.202. Qualifications.
To be an expert approved by the Department for the purpose of conducting earning power assessment interviews, the individual shall possess a minimum of one of the following: [enumerating a list of necessary qualifications, including certification by certain recognized professional organizations, experience and education among other things].
§ 123.203. Credibility determinations.
Credibility determinations relating to the experts contemplated by this sub-chapter are within the province of the workers’ compensation judge.
The only role mentioned for the WCJ is to make credibility determinations. Moreover, Section 123.202 provides only the minimum criteria that a person must meet for Department approval as an expert, and such approval is not automatic.
[1082]*1082Employer further argues that a list of vocational experts similar to the list produced for utilization review proceedings is neither necessary nor desirable. Employer compares an employee’s submission to a vocational interview to an interview with a physician, arguing that should the insurer require the employee to submit to an interview with an unqualified vocational expert then any such mistake can be remedied at the hearing with an objection to the expert’s testimony. This argument overlooks the fact that Section 306(b)(2) requires prior approval of the vocational expert before the insurer may require a vocational interview and the fact that approved vocational experts play a significant role in the statutory framework of the Act as amended by the Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 850.3 The Court accordingly reverses the order of the Board.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2002, the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is reversed.