 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McKenna v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board12/9/2005
a review of the entire prior record and, consequently, empowered the referee to make new credibility findings." Id. The Court rejected the claimant's argument that the WCJ improperly made conflicting credibility determinations on remand, instead concluding that "he simply weighed competing testimony on the issues he was directed to address." Id. at 134-135.
In this case, as in Miller, the Board did not limit the remand order to the review of a conclusion of law in light of the record evidence, which would preclude the finding of additional facts. Rather, the Board directed the WCJ to specifically make additional findings of fact to support his decision. In addition, the Board did not "narrowly tailor directive to preclude further credibility determinations" but, rather, specifically ordered that the WCJ make additional credibility determinations. Miller.
As in Miller, we find that the Board's remand order in this case was likewise painted with a sufficiently broad stroke that directed the WCJ to review the entire record before him. The WCJ had to review several essential components of the claim, specifically whether Claimant's wrist was injured during the course and scope of employment, whether Employer established personal animus as the cause of the conflict, and whether Employer's witnesses were credible. Accordingly, we find that the WCJ did not exceed his authority on remand.
Claimant next argues that the Board erred by failing to recognize that the WCJ did address the credibility of Employer's witnesses in WCJ Decision I. We disagree and conclude that the Board correctly determined that the WCJ's findings did not comport with the reasoned decision requirements of the Act.
"In rendering a reasoned decision in a case with conflicting evidence, the WCJ 'must adequately explain the reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent evidence.'" Daniels v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transport), 574 Pa. 61, 76, 828 A.2d 1043, 1052 (2003)(quoting Section 422(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act ). In the within case, the Board correctly noted that WCJ Decision I did not meet this standard because the decision lacked credibility determinations for all defense witnesses and because necessary findings and conclusions were not made as to elements of and defenses to the claim and defense.
We reject Claimant's argument that the Board erred in not recognizing that credibility determinations had been made in WCJ Decision I. In WCJ Decision I, the WCJ made extensive findings of fact, numbering 240 paragraphs. While these findings exhaustively described the testimony of each of the witnesses in the proceeding, the only credibility findings were in paragraph 232, which is quoted in its entirety earlier in this opinion. In this paragraph, although the WCJ explicitly indicated that he thought Claimant and Claimant's witness, Donna Aument, were credible, he did not make any explicit credibility determinations as to any other witnesses. The WCJ does mention factors for consideration as to whether particular witnesses were credible, but does not indicate whether, based on these factors, the particular witnesses were credible. For instance, while finding of fact 232(c) provides that " ost of Employer's witnesses were outside or had an interest in not seeing", that finding does not indicate whether, based on this factor, the witnesses were credible or not. Additionally, even if a specific credibility determination could be inferred against "most" of defendant's witnesses, it remains unclear what the credibility determinations are as to the rest of the defense witnesses. A WCJ is not required to "explain inherently subjective credibility decisions according to some formul
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.
|
|