 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Savallish v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board10/7/2005
pensation Appeal Board (Wolfe), 539 Pa. 322, 652 A.2d 797 (1995). "Substantial evidence" is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id.; Waldameer Park, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Morrison), 819 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); Hoffmaster v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Senco Products, Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). As the fact finder in workers' compensation proceedings, the WCJ may accept the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. Jordan v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Consolidated Electrical Distributors), 550 Pa. 232, 704 A.2d 1063 (1998).
In addition, in performing a substantial evidence analysis, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the WCJ. Waldameer Park, Inc.; Hoffmaster; American Refrigerator Equipment Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Jakel), 377 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). Moreover, in a substantial evidence analysis where both parties present evidence, it is immaterial that there is evidence in the record supporting a factual finding contrary to that made by the WCJ; rather, the pertinent inquiry is whether there is any evidence which supports the WCJ's factual finding. Waldameer Park, Inc.; Hoffmaster; Grabish.
In addition, it is well settled that, with respect to a claim petition, a claimant bears the burden of establishing an entitlement to benefits and establishing all the elements necessary to support an award. Dandenault v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Philadelphia Flyers, Ltd.), 728 A.2d 1001 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999); Meadville Forging Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Hawes), 726 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 560 Pa. 676, 742 A.2d 173 (1999); Old Republic Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Mascolo), 726 A.2d 444 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Thus, a claimant has the burden of proving that his or her injury arose in the course of employment and was related thereto. Krawchuk v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 497 Pa. 115, 439 A.2d 627 (1981); Dandenault; Meadville Forging Company; Old Republic Insurance Company.
Moreover, this Court has held that injuries unrelated to a claimant's job are compensable if they are the proximate or the natural and probable result of a prior work-related injury. Bush Coal Company v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Adams), 499 A.2d 730 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985); Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Demich), 485 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (affirming the award of benefits for a herniated disc where the claimant sustained a work-related back injury in the course of his employment and then sneezed at home, causing the herniated disc); GTE Sylvania v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Lydon), 458 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). This Court has explained:
Where an employer is liable for an injury which impairs the physical condition of the claimant's body he is also liable for compensation of injury received in a subsequent accident which would not have occurred if the claimant's bodily efficiency had not been impaired in the first [work related] accident.
GTE Sylvania, 458 A.2d at 1051 (quoting Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 437 A.2d 1301, 1303 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981)). In other words, an employer is liable for a disabling injury where a claimant proves that a prior work-related injury is the proximate predisposing cause of the resultant disability. GTE Sylvania.
As noted above, in the instant case, the WCJ relied upon the credible testimony of Employer's medical witness, Dr. Leone, which established that the 1999 period of disability and back surg
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|