allegations error in Pennsylvania

2023A claimant is not required to corroborate the allegations in his claim petition, “as these allegations stand on their own as competent evidence.” Id. 6 Our review is limited to determining whether the WCJ’s findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether constitutional rights were violated.

2023In Chik-Fil-A, we clarified that while a late answer bars an employer from asserting affirmative defenses to the allegations in the claim petition, the claimant is entitled only to “a rebuttable presumption that her disability continues after the last date that the employer should have filed an answer. [The e]mployer is not barred, therefore, from presenting evidence itself, or attempting to discredit the [c]laimant’s evidence, to rebut the presumption that the [c]laimant’s disability continues into the indefinite future.” 792 A.2d at 689 ; see also Heraeus, 697 A.2d at 609 (observing that, no

2017McGriff v. Pa. Commonwealth Bd. of Probation and Parole, 809 A.2d 455, 458 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002), affirmed per curiam, McGriff v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 838 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2003).

2016McGriff v. PBPP, 809 A.2d 455 , 458 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), aff’d, McGriff v. PBPP, 838 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2003) (per curiam).

2026See Lord, 719 A.2d at 309 ; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); see also S.S., 212 A.3d at 1032-33 (in a child custody case, concluding the pro se appellant/father had waived all issues on appeal, where his rambling concise statement failed to comply with Lord and its progeny, and it “is neither concise nor sufficiently specific and coherent to allow the trial court to understand the specific allegations of error and offer a rebuttal.”).

2022See Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(4); see S.S., 212 A.3d at 1030-34 (holding that father’s challenges to trial court’s order denying modification were waived because father’s Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was not sufficiently specific and coherent to allow the trial court to understand the specific allegations of error and offer a rebuttal).

2025See Mazurek, 96 A.3d at 377 (citing Jarl Investments, L.P. v Fleck, 937 A.2d 1113, 1119-1120 (Pa. Super. 2007) (addressing issues on appeal where the allegations of error were distinguishable)).

2014In re A.B., supra; see also Jarl Investments, L.P. v. Fleck, 937 A.2d 1113, 1119-1120 (Pa.Super.2007) (addressing appellant’s issues on appeal where the allegations of error were distinguishable).

2023Co., 550 A.2d 1009 , 1010 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“Appellant argues that this action . . . is directed at the employer’s insurance carrier . . . for injuries caused by the carrier, separate and apart from those which were incurred at his workplace.”); Kuney II, 578 A.2d at 1288 [J-62-2022] - 9 On PMA’s appeal, this Court restored the trial court’s order sustaining the preliminary objections.28 “When the allegations of a claim have as their ultimate basis an injury compensable under the [WCA],” we explained, “the claim must be considered within the framework of the statute.”29 “Reduced to its essenc

2023This Court found that no exception to the exclusivity provision applied, explaining that, “[w]hen the allegations of a claim have as their ultimate basis an injury compensable under the [WCA], the claim must be considered within the framework of the statute.” 578 A.2d at 1287 ; cf. Ducjai, 656 A.2d at 109 (“The comprehensive system of substantive, procedural, and remedial laws comprising the [workers’] compensation system should be the exclusive forum for redress of injuries in any way related to the work place.”).

2010Asserting that the answer was untimely filed, Claimant moved to have the allegations in her claim petition deemed admitted in accordance with Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Madara), 56 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 423 A.2d 1125 (1981).

2010Asserting that the answer was untimely filed, Claimant moved to have the allegations in her claim petition deemed admitted in accordance with Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Madara), 56 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 423 A.2d 1125 (1981).

2026See Lord, 719 A.2d at 309 ; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); see also S.S., 212 A.3d at 1032-33 (in a child custody case, concluding the pro se appellant/father had waived all issues on appeal, where his rambling concise statement failed to comply with Lord and its progeny, and it “is neither concise nor sufficiently specific and coherent to allow the trial court to understand the specific allegations of error and offer a rebuttal.”).

2025See Mazurek, 96 A.3d at 377 (citing Jarl Investments, L.P. v Fleck, 937 A.2d 1113, 1119-1120 (Pa. Super. 2007) (addressing issues on appeal where the allegations of error were distinguishable)).

2023Co., 550 A.2d 1009 , 1010 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“Appellant argues that this action . . . is directed at the employer’s insurance carrier . . . for injuries caused by the carrier, separate and apart from those which were incurred at his workplace.”); Kuney II, 578 A.2d at 1288 [J-62-2022] - 9 On PMA’s appeal, this Court restored the trial court’s order sustaining the preliminary objections.28 “When the allegations of a claim have as their ultimate basis an injury compensable under the [WCA],” we explained, “the claim must be considered within the framework of the statute.”29 “Reduced to its essenc

2023This Court found that no exception to the exclusivity provision applied, explaining that, “[w]hen the allegations of a claim have as their ultimate basis an injury compensable under the [WCA], the claim must be considered within the framework of the statute.” 578 A.2d at 1287 ; cf. Ducjai, 656 A.2d at 109 (“The comprehensive system of substantive, procedural, and remedial laws comprising the [workers’] compensation system should be the exclusive forum for redress of injuries in any way related to the work place.”).

2022See Hall v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (America Service Group), 3 A.3d 734, 741 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (expert need not believe the claimant has sustained a certain injury so long as the expert opines on whether the accepted injury continues to disable the claimant).

2022Our Supreme Court has previously determined: The Sentencing Code provides that “[a]fter a verdict of murder of the first degree is recorded and before the jury is discharged, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing hearing in which the jury shall determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(a)(1). [Our Supreme] Court has repeatedly interpreted Section 9711(a)(1) as providing that “the same jury which renders the verdict of murder in the first degree is the same jury which is to determine whether the sentence is to be death or life

2020Furthermore, with respect to Howard’s sufficiency claim, “we have repeatedly held that in order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient.” Commonwealth v. Ellison, 213 A.3d 312, 320 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal ____________________________________________ 3 Specifically, Howard raised the following allegations of error: 1.

2019Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876, 879 (Pa. Super. 2007) (A claim that the defendant's guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made was found waived on the grounds that the claim could have been raised on direct appeal but was not}). 4 As such, with regard to the Defendant's first issue, he must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his plea of guilty was unlawfully induced because he requested, but was not provided, an interpreter and that such circumstances make it.likely that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent, AND that

2019Indeed, "[tjhe appealability of an order directly implicates the jurisdiction of the court asked to review the order." Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa. Super.

2017After recognizing the referee’s authority over questions of credibility and evidentiary weight, we observed that “the referee’s credibility determinations do not constitute evidence which can be weighed against the admitted allegations in the claim petition.” Greeley, 647 A.2d at 687 (emphasis added).

2017See Tobias v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Nature’s Way Nursery, Inc.), 595 A.2d 781, 784 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). 5 On appeal to this Court,5 Claimant argues that the WCJ erred in awarding total disability benefits for a closed period because the allegations in the claim petition entitled Claimant to a rebuttable presumption of ongoing disability and Employer offered no contrary evidence.