 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McKenna v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board12/9/2005
This is an appeal by Michael McKenna (Claimant) from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the decision of a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to terminate Claimant's benefits. Claimant argues that the WCJ erred in changing the legal conclusions in the remand decision (WCJ Decision II) from those of the initial decision (WCJ Decision I) after the Board remanded the case for additional factual findings. We affirm the Board.
Claimant was employed by the Philadelphia Police Department (Employer) since 1995 as a full-time police officer. On February 14, 1998, while in the police station where he worked, Claimant was involved in a verbal altercation with Officer Paul Seeger. Claimant made the following allegations: (1) during the altercation Officer Seeger pushed Claimant, causing him to fall backwards; (2) during the fall, Claimant struck his left wrist on an undetermined object that he believes was either a door frame or a soda machine; and (3) from this contact, Claimant sustained physical injury to his wrist for which he has received ongoing treatment. Claimant also claims that, since this incident, he has suffered psychological injuries in the form of anxiety stress attacks. Claimant argues that the wrist and psychological injuries preclude him from returning to his pre-injury position. Based upon these injuries, on May 28, 1998, Claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits.
Over the next three years, the WCJ conducted seven separate hearings in the case, receiving: (1) testimony from Claimant and three of Claimant's witnesses; (2) testimony from fourteen of Employer's witnesses; and (3) various exhibits and documentary evidence from both parties. On December 18, 2001, WCJ Michael Hetrick filed WCJ Decision I, in which he granted Claimant's petition.
In this decision, the WCJ made extensive findings of fact (FOF) that discussed the details of each witness' testimony. However, none of these individual findings addressed the credibility of the witnesses. The entirety of the WCJ's credibility findings, as to all witnesses and evidence, are contained in finding of fact 232:
232. This Judge finds the Claimant credible that he injured his left wrist in an altercation with Officer Seeger for reasons including:
a. The Confidential White Paper where Officer Robinson said Claimant's hand may have struck the vending machine. Officer Robinson was the closest witness to the incident;
b. The emergency room report supports Claimant's testimony;
c. Most of Employer's witnesses were outside or had an interest in not seeing, i.e. Seeger;
d. Claimant is right-handed; Officers Murray and King shook hands with Claimant's right hand; the injury was to Claimant's left hand;
e. Donna Aument was credible;
f. Dr. Nissenbaum supports continuing disability.
(WCJ Decision I, FOF 232.) Additionally, WCJ Decision I contained no findings as to why the WCJ concluded that the injury occurred in the course and scope of Claimant's employment. Employer appealed from this decision.
On appeal, by order and opinion dated March 10, 2003, the Board vacated WCJ Decision I as to the WCJ's conclusion that Claimant's injury to his left wrist was compensable. (Board Decision I.) The Board relied on Daniels v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 753 A.2d 293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) to conclude that " hile a WCJ is not required to address all the evidence presented, he is required to provide the basis of his ultimate decision and to identify credible evidence." (Board Decision I at 4.)
The Board reasoned that the WCJ did
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.
|
|