 |
 |
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
testified at hearings before WCJ Wehan and also by deposition. Upon Claimant's move from Erie to the Harrisburg area, this case was reassigned to WCJ Peckmann. Section 415 of the Act, 77 P.S. ยง851, provides that prior to an actual award or disallowance of compensation by the WCJ to whom the petition was assigned, the Bureau of Workers' Compensation may reassign the petition to another WCJ. Section 415 further provides that the testimony taken before the original WCJ shall be considered as if it were taken before the substituted WCJ.
As Claimant points out, WCJ Peckmann had before him all the evidence submitted to WCJ Wehan, as well as transcripts of all the hearings held before WCJ Wehan. In addition, Claimant did appear in person before WCJ Peckmann on several occasions. It is well-settled that a WCJ who did not take the evidence in a workers' compensation matter is permitted under Section 415 of the Act to render a decision in that matter. Arena v. Packaging Sys. Corp., 510 Pa. 34, 507 A.2d 18 (1986); McAfee v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. (Allegheny Gen. Hosp.), 579 A.2d 1363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). Although the substituted WCJ may not have observed the demeanor of the witnesses, fact-finding deference should be afforded to the WCJ on the ground that all WCJs deal exclusively with workers' compensation and have developed expertise in that area of the law. Id.
With regard to Claimant's credibility, the WCJ determined in Finding of Fact (F.F.) 42 that Claimant provided a consistent history to her various health care providers and, in particular, the WCJ accepted as credible Claimant's testimony that she struck her low back in the July 17, 1998 fall. Although the WCJ did not make specific credibility findings regarding Claimant's complaints of pain and her testimony regarding her cognitive problems following her work injury, the WCJ did state that " n considering the evidence as a whole, it is evident that
laimant did strike her head at least once when she fell at work on July 17, 1998, and that there is near unanimity of agreement among the health care providers who treated or examined her in the year or so after the event that she suffered from post-concussive syndrome as a result of the fall." F.F. 41; R.R. 670a.
Based on our review of the WCJ's findings of fact as a whole, we believe that the WCJ indicated that he found Claimant's complaints of pain and mental impairment following her work injury to be consistent and credible. In particular, the WCJ noted that Claimant has presented a consistent history to her numerous health care providers. Moreover, we do not agree with Employer's contention that Daniels, which dealt primarily with what must be included in a WCJ's credibility determination regarding conflicting medical evidence, requires that a WCJ render detailed credibility determinations regarding all aspects of a claimant's testimony where, as here, the WCJ's decision reflects that he generally accepted the claimant's testimony as consistent and credible.
Consequently, we believe that the WCJ's decision, viewed as a whole, clearly reflects that he found Claimant's testimony regarding her complaints of pain and cognitive difficulties following her July 17, 1998 fall to be consistent and credible. Hence, we conclude that the WCJ's findings meet the "reasoned decision" requirements of Section 422(a) of the Act. Daniels.
II.
Employer's second argument is that the WCJ's findings that Claimant sustained post-traumatic fibromyalgia and cognitive defects due to post-concussive syndrome are not supported by unequivocal medical evidence. A determination as to whether medical evidence is equivocal is a conclusion of law that i
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.
|
|