 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Priselac v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board6/19/2002
Charles Priselac (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) denying Claimant's Petition for Rehearing under The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act (Act). We affirm.
Claimant filed a claim petition alleging that on April 25, 1994, he sustained work-related injuries to his back, neck and knees during the course and scope of his employment as a mechanic with Mechanical Operations Company (Employer). Employer filed an answer denying the allegations of Claimant's claim petition. Hearings before a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) ensued.
Claimant testified and presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Narayan Nayak, M.D. Employer presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Barry Riemer, M.D. The WCJ found that Claimant's testimony lacked credibility. The WCJ rejected the testimony of Dr. Nayak. The WCJ accepted the testimony of Dr. Reimer as both credible and competent.
Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, the WCJ determined that Claimant failed to meet his burden of proving that he sustained a compensable work injury. The WCJ further determined that Claimant failed to notify Employer of his work injury within 120 days as required by Section 311 of the Act, 77 P.S. ยง631. By decision dated January 27, 1999, the WCJ dismissed Claimant's claim petition.
From this decision, Claimant appealed to the Board. The Board determined that the WCJ correctly concluded that Claimant failed to meet his burden of proving that he sustained a compensable work injury. The Board determined that the WCJ erred with regard to Claimant's failure to timely notify Employer of the injury. The Board found that Claimant had notified Employer of his work injury within 120 days as evidenced by a notice of compensation denial which was issued by Employer on April 28, 1994. However, having failed to prove a compensable injury, the Board concluded this error was harmless.
On August 28, 2001, Claimant filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Board on the grounds that the WCJ erroneously discredited Claimant's testimony.
By decision dated November 6, 2001, the Board denied Claimant's Petition for Rehearing. This appeal now follows.
The sole issue raised for our review is whether the Board abused its discretion by denying Claimant's Petition for Rehearing. Claimant maintains that he is entitled to a rehearing because the WCJ did not believe Claimant's testimony that he gave timely notice of his injury, when the evidence demonstrated that he had. Since the WCJ did not believe Claimant's testimony on this one point, Claimant contends that the WCJ was more apt to disbelieve the remainder of Claimant's testimony and thus a rehearing is warranted. We disagree.
Preliminarily, we note that, with respect to a claim petition, the claimant bears the burden of proving that his or her injury arose in the course of employment and was related thereto. Inglis House v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135, 634 A.2d 592 (1993). Generally, if there is no obvious relationship between the disability and the work-related cause, unequivocal medical testimony is required to meet this burden of proof. Lewis v. Commonwealth, 508 Pa. 360, 498 A.2d 800 (1985).
The WCJ is the ultimate finder of fact and has exclusive province over questions of credibility and evidentiary weight. Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 305 A.2d 757 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973). The WCJ is free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness, including a medical witness, in whole or in part. General Electric Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Valsamaki),
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|