 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McKenna v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board12/9/2005
aic rubric or detailed to the 'nth degree.'" Daniels, 574 Pa. at 77, 828 A.2d at 1053. However, there must be at least some statement as to whether particular testimony was credible or not. The Board correctly noted that, as to the defense witnesses, specific credibility findings were absent or, at best, incomplete.
In addition to these credibility deficiencies, the Board correctly determined that the WCJ did not make findings as to the elements of and defenses to the claim, specifically: (1) why he concluded the injury was sustained in the course of employment and (2) whether the injury was due to personal animosity. Given these deficiencies in WCJ Decision I, the Board appropriately remanded with instructions to address the deficiencies.
We note that Claimant's reliance on Miller does not support his position. The WCJ's initial decision in Miller also contained conclusory findings, similar to those in this case, that the Court deemed insufficient and in need of further inquiry. For instance, in Miller, the Court found insufficient the finding that " he medical testimony of [claimant's two experts] are credible and relate the injury of the claimant to her work." Miller, 616 A.2d at 134. This Court remanded the case for a more specific explanation of the WCJ's rationale, much as the Board did in Board Decision I.
It is clear that in WCJ Decision II, the Remand Decision, as opposed to WCJ Decision I, the WCJ more closely evaluated each witness' testimony, made specific credibility findings as to each witness, weighed the conflicting testimony in light of his credibility determinations, and addressed the scope of employment and personal animosity issues.
"We are mindful that on remand the referee, as fact-finder, is entitled due deference for his role" and "is free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part." Miller at 134 n.4 (citations omitted). Essentially, Claimant asks this Court to bypass this deference and reject the WCJ's more detailed analysis in the WCJ's remand decision simply because the WCJ reached a different conclusion. However, Miller, upon which Claimant relies, runs counter to his own position. Accordingly, we reject Claimant's second argument.
For the above reasons, Claimant's appeal is denied, and the decision of the Board is affirmed.
NOW, December 9, 2005, the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
RENEE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
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.
|
|