WCJ committed error in Pennsylvania

2023Issues Employer argues that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ, because the WCJ committed an error of law when he failed to evaluate Employer’s Modification Petition using the standard set forth in Kachinski, 532 A.2d at 374 .

2023Issues Employer argues that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ, because the WCJ committed an error of law when he failed to evaluate Employer’s Modification Petition using the standard set forth in Kachinski, 532 A.2d at 374 .

2025Moonblatt v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 481 A.2d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).

2024It is true that a claimant’s expert may “successfully challenge the reliability of the IRE by pinpointing errors of fact or errors in the IRE physician’s application of the AMA Guides.” Westmorland, 29 A.3d at 128 n.10.

2022Department of Transportation v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Clippinger), 38 A.3d 1037 , 1042 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

2018Appeal Bd. (Fuller), 942 A.2d 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 2 Our review in a workers’ compensation appeal is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supported the WCJ’s findings of fact, whether the WCJ committed an error of law, or whether the WCJ’s decision violated constitutional rights.

2017In support of this argument, Employer relies on Shenango, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Weber), 166 Pa.Cmwlth. 348 , 646 A.2d 669 (1994), wherein this Court held that the claimant’s loss of wages was not the result of his physical limitations from his work-related injury, but rather the claimant’s voluntary decision to bid out of his pre-injury department where he had been working in a modified-duty position with no loss of earnings.

2017In support of this argument, Employer relies on Shenango, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Weber), 166 Pa.Cmwlth. 348 , 646 A.2d 669 (1994), wherein this Court held that the claimant’s loss of wages was not the result of his physical limitations from his work-related injury, but rather the claimant’s voluntary decision to bid out of his pre-injury department where he had been working in a modified-duty position with no loss of earnings.

2017Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. 7 Employer also argues that the Board applied the incorrect burden of proof when it relied on Landmark Constructors, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Costello), 747 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2000), for the proposition that job availability must be established by an employer in order to obtain a suspension of benefits in a claim petition proceeding.

2008Borough of Heidelberg v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Selva), 894 A.2d 861 , 863 n. 3 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006).

2008Repash is correct in that the Board’s scope of review is limited to determining whether the WCJ committed an error of law and whether any necessary findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence, Bechtel Power Corp. v. Workmens' Compensation Appeal Board (Postlethwait), 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 544 , 648 A.2d 1266 (1994), but the Court is not persuaded that the Board’s decision went outside of its permissible scope.

2008Repash is correct in that the Board’s scope of review is limited to determining whether the WCJ committed an error of law and whether any necessary findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence, Bechtel Power Corp. v. Workmens' Compensation Appeal Board (Postlethwait), 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 544 , 648 A.2d 1266 (1994), but the Court is not persuaded that the Board’s decision went outside of its permissible scope.

2006Claimant argues the WCJ did not certify the record as required under the regulations, and that her decision contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law, rendering the decision both unsupported by substantial, competent evidence and not a “reasoned decision” under Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 574 Pa. 61 , 828 A.2d 1043 (2003).

2006Claimant argues the WCJ did not certify the record as required under the regulations, and that her decision contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law, rendering the decision both unsupported by substantial, competent evidence and not a “reasoned decision” under Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 574 Pa. 61 , 828 A.2d 1043 (2003).

2003We note that Claimant never raised the question of whether Employer should be precluded from seeking a modification of the NCP description of Claimant's injury based upon our Supreme Court's decisions in Beissel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (John Wanamaker, Inc.), 502 Pa. 178 , 465 A.2d 969 (1983), and Barna v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 513 Pa. 518 , 522 A.2d 22 (1987). 4 .

2003We note that Claimant never raised the question of whether Employer should be precluded from seeking a modification of the NCP description of Claimant's injury based upon our Supreme Court's decisions in Beissel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (John Wanamaker, Inc.), 502 Pa. 178 , 465 A.2d 969 (1983), and Barna v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 513 Pa. 518 , 522 A.2d 22 (1987). 4 .

2003We note that Claimant never raised the question of whether Employer should be precluded from seeking a modification of the NCP description of Claimant's injury based upon our Supreme Court's decisions in Beissel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (John Wanamaker, Inc.), 502 Pa. 178 , 465 A.2d 969 (1983), and Barna v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 513 Pa. 518 , 522 A.2d 22 (1987). 4 .

2003We note that Claimant never raised the question of whether Employer should be precluded from seeking a modification of the NCP description of Claimant's injury based upon our Supreme Court's decisions in Beissel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (John Wanamaker, Inc.), 502 Pa. 178 , 465 A.2d 969 (1983), and Barna v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 513 Pa. 518 , 522 A.2d 22 (1987). 4 .

2002Huskins v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (University of Pennsylvania), 80 Pa.Cmwlth.161, 471 A.2d 114 (1984) Where the party with the burden of proof is the only party to present evidence and does not prevail, this Court’s review is limited to determining whether the WCJ committed an error of law or capriciously disregarded competent evidence.

2002Li nko, Russell v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Volkswagen of America), 121 Pa.Cmwlth.436, 550 A.2d 1364 (1988).

1997The WCAB reversed, holding that Claimant did not show abnormal working conditions caused the psychiatric injury relying on Cadden v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 135 Pa.Cmwlth. 195 , 579 A.2d 1378 (1990).

1997The WCAB reversed, holding that Claimant did not show abnormal working conditions caused the psychiatric injury relying on Cadden v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 135 Pa.Cmwlth. 195 , 579 A.2d 1378 (1990).