section 422(a) reasoned decision requirements in Pennsylvania

2023Employer argues that the WCJ erred by failing to assess Claimant’s earning power pursuant to the standard set forth in Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 532 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1987), and by failing to issue a reasoned decision pursuant to Section 422(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act),1 77 P.S. § 834.

2023Employer argues that the WCJ erred by failing to assess Claimant’s earning power pursuant to the standard set forth in Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 532 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1987), and by failing to issue a reasoned decision pursuant to Section 422(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act),1 77 P.S. § 834.

2017Appeal Bd. (Marlowe), 812 A.2d 478 , 487 n.14 (Pa. 2002) (emphasis added). 9 In addition, to satisfy the reasoned decision requirements of Section 422(a) of the Act,3 a WCJ must set forth the rationale for the decision by specifying the evidence relied upon and reasons for accepting it.

2003But see generally, Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. (Marlowe), 571 Pa.189, 812 A.2d 478 , 487 n.13 (2002) (noting that adoption of reasoned decision requirement evidences General Assembly's intention that appellate review be conducted in manner "that ensures that the agency has not exceeded its fact-finding role or the outer limits of its discretion").

2023(Id. at 11.) Employer asserts there was no error in finding Claimant’s attempt to expand the description of the work injury after the C&R Agreement was barred by res judicata pursuant to DePue v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (N. Paone Construction, Inc.), 61 A.3d 1062 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2021Further, the Board held that although the WCJ did not make a finding specifically rejecting this portion of Claimant’s testimony, the WCJ “clearly concluded that Claimant failed to meet his burden.” (Id. at 7.) Further, the Board, citing Acme Markets, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Brown), 890 A.2d 21 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), stated that “a reasoned decision does not require the WCJ to give a line-by-line analysis of each statement by each witness, explaining how a particular statement affected the ultimate decision.” (Id.) Contrary to Claimant’s arguments, the Board held that “the WCJ

2020PPL, 5 A.3d at 845 .

2018Anderson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Penn Center for Rehab), 15 A.3d 944 , 947 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). 9 of the reasoned decision requirement of section 422(a) of the Act, a great deal of his assertions attack the WCJ’s credibility determinations.

2017Clearly, the WCJ’s decision satisfies the reasoned decision requirements of Section 422(a) of the Act, and the WCJ did not capriciously disregard the evidence Claimant presented.5 Nevertheless, Claimant cites Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Bensy), 651 A.2d 212 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), for the 5 Claimant also very briefly asserts that, even assuming the surgery he underwent was unnecessary, the WCJ capriciously disregarded his argument that unnecessary treatment is still compensable if it would not have been undertaken “but for” the work injury.

2017Montgomery Tank Lines v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Humphries), 792 A.2d 6 , 13 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

2016(FOF ¶ 8(a)-(e).) We conclude that, because the WCJ provided the above objective reasons for rejecting the portions of Dr. Krum’s and Dr. Stepanuk’s opinions that conflicted with the opinions of Dr. Fras, the reasoned decision requirement of Section 422(a) of the Act is plainly satisfied. 17 Finally, Claimant contends that the WCJ erred by denying Claimant’s Reinstatement Petition because the WCJ employed a legal standard that is inconsistent with the standards set forth by our Supreme Court’s decision in Bufford v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (North American Telecom), 2 A.3d 548 (Pa. 2

2016(FOF ¶ 8(a)-(e).) We conclude that, because the WCJ provided the above objective reasons for rejecting the portions of Dr. Krum’s and Dr. Stepanuk’s opinions that conflicted with the opinions of Dr. Fras, the reasoned decision requirement of Section 422(a) of the Act is plainly satisfied. 17 Finally, Claimant contends that the WCJ erred by denying Claimant’s Reinstatement Petition because the WCJ employed a legal standard that is inconsistent with the standards set forth by our Supreme Court’s decision in Bufford v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (North American Telecom), 2 A.3d 548 (Pa. 2

1998In Hahnemann University Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Wallace), 718 A.2d 391 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), we interpreted the reasoned decision provision of § 422 of the Act as requiring the WCJ to state his or her reasons for accepting certain evidence and adequately explain why competent, conflicting evidence was rejected or discredited.