Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Thomas E. Weger v. The City of Pittsburgh and The Civil Service Commission, SA 521 of 1983.
Richard J. Joyce, Assistant City Solicitor, with him, D. R. Pellegrini, City Solicitor, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Judges MacPhail, Doyle and Barry, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 303]
The Civil Service Commission of the City of Pittsburgh (Appellant) appeals from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which reversed the Commission's disqualification of Thomas E. Weger (Appellee) from eligibility for a position as a police officer for the City of Pittsburgh (City).
Appellee was disqualified after a back x-ray revealed the existence of two or more "Schmorl's nodes" on his spine. The disqualification was upheld on appeal following two hearings before the Commission. Appellee then appealed to the court of common pleas, which reversed the Commission on the basis that it had determined Appellee's condition to be "a back injury risk factor disregarding orthopedic testimony to the contrary."
All applicants to the City police department are required to undergo a physical examination. Physical standards which must be met for acceptance have been outlined in Section 12 of Rule III of the Rules of the City Civil Service Commission. Section 12(b)(10) provides as follows:
Evidence of a serious back injury, disc or back pathology, abnormal curvature, Pott's disease, anklyosis, osteomelitis, or other gross abnormalities will be disqualifying.
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 304]
Conditions which are included in the term "other gross abnormalities" have been interpreted by the Commission's staff physicians to include, among other things, the presence of two or more "Schmorl's nodes." Evidence of this interpretation was introduced by the Commission in the form of a written interdepartmental memorandum. The Commission's medical expert, Dr. Danna Swan, testified that the interpretation had been adopted as an amalgamation of various opinions outlined in medical literature as well as input from various specialists. She stated that a controversy existed in the field regarding whether the existence of Schmorl's nodes alone indicated a serious risk of future back pathology or whether the risk existed only where the nodes could be attributed to certain causes. She stated that the existing statistics were presently inconclusive, but that more than one study indicated that the presence of the nodes alone indicated a weakened condition of connective tissue in the spine which was probably genetically acquired. She further stated that the presence of two or more Schmorl's nodes was the generally accepted industrial standard for disqualification from a job that was considered to be arduous as opposed to merely physically taxing.
Appellee introduced letters from his own medical expert, orthopod Jonathan E. Hottenstein, M.D., which stated an unequivocal opinion that Appellee's nodes were unaccompanied by any degenerative disc disease and had no correlation whatsoever with the development of a lower back problem in the future. Dr. Swan stated that she did not necessarily disagree with this opinion personally, but that the standard had been adopted after an ...