 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Evans Restaurant v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board11/1/2005
supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were made or whether constitutional rights were violated. Morris Painting, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. (Piotrowski), 814 A.2d 879 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). Furthermore, this Court recognizes that " he WCJ, as the ultimate fact-finder, is the sole arbiter of the credibility and weight of the evidence." Rissi v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. (Tony DePaul & Son), 808 A.2d 274, 278 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 687, 823 A.2d 146 (2003). It is also well settled that " he WCJ is free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness, including a medical witness, in whole or in part." McNulty v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. (McNulty Tool & Die), 804 A.2d 1260, 1263 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), appeal denied, 574 Pa. 756, 830 A.2d 977 (2003).
I.
Employer's first argument is that the WCJ erred in determining that Claimant suffers from post-traumatic fibromyalgia and cognitive disorder as a result of her work injury where the WCJ did not hear Claimant testify or assess the credibility of her complaints and where Claimant's medical evidence was essentially based on her subjective complaints. Specifically, Employer asserts that the WCJ did not even attempt to assess the viability or credibility of Claimant's subjective complaints of physical pain (fibromyalgia) and her testimony regarding problems with her mental processes and memory deficit (cognitive disorder), which were relied upon by her doctors.
In support of its position, Employer cites Canavan v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. (B&D Mining Co.), 769 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), for the proposition that the WCJ's failure to make adequate credibility determinations constitutes reversible error. Citing Daniels v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transport), 574 Pa. 61, 828 A.2d 1043 (2003), Employer also contends that the WCJ's failure to make adequate credibility determinations of Claimant's testimony violates the "reasoned decision" requirement of Section 422(a) of the Act, 77 P.S. ยง834.
In Daniels, the Supreme Court interpreted the "reasoned decision" provision of Section 422(a) as requiring that the WCJ's decision be sufficient to permit adequate review by the Board and the appellate courts under the applicable review standards. The Daniels Court stated that in cases where the witness has appeared and testified before the WCJ, "a mere conclusion as to which witness was deemed credible, in the absence of some special circumstance, could be sufficient to render the decision adequately 'reasoned.'" 574 Pa. at 78, 828 A.2d at 1053.
The Daniels Court recognized, however, that where medical experts testified by deposition, the WCJ's resolution of conflicting evidence must be supported by more than a statement that one expert is deemed more credible than another. Rather, there must be "some articulation of the actual objective basis for the credibility determination . for the decision to be a 'reasoned' one which facilitates effective appellate review." Id.
Nonetheless, in Kasper v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. (Perloff Bros., Inc.), 769 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), this Court recognized that the mandate in Section 422(a) of the Act that the WCJ explain his reasons for discrediting evidence does not permit a party to challenge or second-guess each of the WCJ's reasons for his credibility determinations. In Kasper, we recognized that " eciding credibility is the quintessential function of the fact-finder" and that " t is not an exact science, and the ultimate conclusion comprises far more than a tally sheet of its various components." 769 A.2d at 1246.
In the present case, Claimant
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|