 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McKenna v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board12/9/2005
rimary arguments in this appeal: 1) the WCJ erred by exceeding his authority on remand when he reversed all of his original credibility determinations; and 2) the Board erred by failing to recognize that the WCJ made credibility determinations in WCJ Decision I, and that these initial determinations were accurate. We address these arguments in turn.
Claimant first argues that the WCJ erred by exceeding his authority on remand. Relying on John A. Miller & Assoc., Ltd. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (DeFelice), 616 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992), Claimant argues that a WCJ may not make new findings of fact when the Board's remand order only directed the revaluation of a conclusion of law in light of the evidence contained in the record. Claimant argues that a remand order from the Board requiring a WCJ to make new factual findings does not authorize the making of new credibility determinations if the Board's remand order is narrowly tailored to that specific directive. (Claimant's Brief at 13.) Claimant believes that the Board provided such a specific directive by requiring the WCJ to provide "explanations regarding the credibility findings and explanations and guidance regarding the course and scope and personal animosity defenses." Id.
Claimant is essentially arguing that, although the Board may require a WCJ to more fully explain cursory credibility determinations, the WCJ, after more thoroughly reviewing and explaining these credibility determinations, may not change his result if his more thorough examination conflicts with the more cursory review. This argument is not supported by the precedent upon which Claimant relies.
Claimant's reliance on Miller is misplaced. In Miller, this Court addressed the issue of whether a WCJ exceeded the scope of a remand Order when his decision following remand contained credibility determinations that contradicted those of the pre-remand Order even though no additional evidence was presented on remand. In the initial decision issued on February 19, 1988, the WCJ found credible the testimony of two doctors offered by the claimant. The WCJ relied on this testimony to conclude that the claimant was suffering from an ongoing injury after September 1986. The Board remanded the case for the WCJ to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the dates of injury, work availability, average weekly wage, and attorney's fees. On remand, the WCJ reversed his credibility findings as to these two doctors and modified his conclusion that the injury was ongoing, instead concluding that the disability ceased in January, 1987. The claimant appealed from the WCJ's decision. The Board affirmed the WCJ decision and the claimant appealed to this Court. This Court affirmed, concluding that the WCJ was free to revise his original credibility determinations.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court distinguished between remands that directed the WCJ to reevaluate a conclusion of law in light of record evidence, from remands directing the referee to make new factual findings. The Court concluded that the former precluded the making of new findings of fact, while the latter did not. Specifically, the Court stated that:
A remand order directing the reevaluation of a conclusion of law in light of the evidence contained in the record would not permit the making of new findings of fact. A remand order directing the referee to make new factual findings may justify the making of new credibility determinations, unless the order narrowly tailors the directive to preclude further credibility determinations.
Miller, 616 A.2d at 134 (citations omitted). The Court concluded that "the broad stroke of the remand order" required "
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.
|
|