claimant brief in Pennsylvania

2025See Pryor v. Workers’ Comp[.] Appeal B[d.] (Colin Serv[.] Sys[.]), 923 A.2d 1197, 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); Andracki v. Workmen’s Comp[.] Appeal B[d.] (Allied E[.] States Maint[.]), . . . 508 A.2d 624 , 625 n.2 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1986).

2020Ellis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 A.3d 1159 , 1162 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). “[S]ubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Chartiers Community Mental Health and Retardation Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 134 A.3d 1165, 1170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 4 Although we are sensitive and sympathetic to Claimant’s situation, Claimant’s allegations that he was a single father, taking care of two children, trying to find a job, and juggling too many things are not in the record. “[M]ere allegat

2021Bd. of Rev., 189 A.3d 1109, 1113 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

2020Ellis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 A.3d 1159 , 1162 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). “[S]ubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Chartiers Community Mental Health and Retardation Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 134 A.3d 1165, 1170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 4 Although we are sensitive and sympathetic to Claimant’s situation, Claimant’s allegations that he was a single father, taking care of two children, trying to find a job, and juggling too many things are not in the record. “[M]ere allegat

2020Campbell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 694 A.2d 1167, 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

2014See Campbell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 694 A.2d 1167, 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997) (where a claimant does not challenge any specific findings of fact they are conclusive on appeal to this Court).

2000Recently, however, our Su *433 preme Court in Davis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Swarthmore Borough), 561 Pa. 462 , 751 A.2d 168, 170 (2000), held “that where a psychic injury is claimed, regardless of whether it is manifested through psychic symptoms alone or physical symptoms as well, the claimant must establish that the injury arose from abnormal working conditions in order to recover benefits.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, we need not decide whether Claimant’s claim is mental/mental or mental/physical in nature, since, regardless of whether the psychological stimuli to which she was e

2000Recently, however, our Su *433 preme Court in Davis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Swarthmore Borough), 561 Pa. 462 , 751 A.2d 168, 170 (2000), held “that where a psychic injury is claimed, regardless of whether it is manifested through psychic symptoms alone or physical symptoms as well, the claimant must establish that the injury arose from abnormal working conditions in order to recover benefits.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, we need not decide whether Claimant’s claim is mental/mental or mental/physical in nature, since, regardless of whether the psychological stimuli to which she was e

2019For these reasons, we hold that the Board did not err in affirming the WCJ’s decision denying Claimant’s claim petition for Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 367 A.2d 366, 370 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976).

1982The claimant responds, saying that the exercise of the privilege does not constitute evidence, and that because the four exhibits are uncorroborated hearsay evidence to which an objection was properly made, the board’s holding is correct under our decision in Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522 , 367 A.2d 366 (1976). 4 In reviewing this appeal, we must consider whether (1) the four exhibits that were introduced into evidence by the employer constitute hearsay, and (2) whether the exercise by the claimant at the hearing of his Fifth Amendment privile

2015During the initial sixty-day period, a claimant may challenge the IRE based on whether the IRE physician meets the qualifications for performing IREs or the manner in which the IRE was performed, see Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Ketterer), 87 A.3d 942, 946-49 (Pa.Cmwlth.) (the claimant challenged the IRE physician’s qualifications because the physician did not have the active clinical practice hours required under the Act), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 626 Pa. 702 , 97 A.3d 746 (2014); Barrett, 987 A.2d at 1284-85 (the claimant challenged the me

2011In upholding the WCJ’s denial of Claimant’s challenge to the IRE rating, the Court stated that “[i]n effect, Claimant challenges the weight assigned to [the IRE physician’s] testimony, a matter entrusted solely to the WCJ as the factfinder.” Barrett, 987 A.2d at 1287 .

2026Bd. of Rev., 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 3 Attached to Claimant’s brief are numerous documents that are not part of the Certified Record.

2020Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (citations omitted)).

2025See Woods v. Off. of Open Recs., 998 A.2d 665 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

2017See Woods v. Office of Open Records, 998 A.2d 665 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (meaningful review possible when court able to discern arguments of a pro se appellant).

2025See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (“[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”); Berner v. Montour Township, 120 A.3d 433 , 437 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (ruling that a party’s failure to sufficiently develop an issue in a brief constitutes waiver of the issue); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).

2023Pennsylvania’s Rules of Appellate Procedure direct that a petitioner divide the argument section of his or her brief “into as many parts as there are questions to be argued” and “have at the head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). “[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that cl

2021Bd. of Rev., 723 A.2d 272, 275 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). 8 Presently, it is apparent that Claimant’s argument on appeal focuses almost entirely on the question of whether he was terminated.9 It can be fairly suggested by Claimant’s brief, however, that Claimant also contends that he had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature to voluntarily terminate his employment because he was not medically cleared to return to work.

2007See Id.

2023RR at 114a. 2 By an April 29, 2019 Interlocutory Order, the WCJ denied Claimant’s motion for relief under Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Madara), 423 A.2d 1125, 1127-28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (holding that an employer’s failure to file a timely answer under the Act precluded the employer from presenting evidence of an affirmative defense to a claim petition).

2023The WCJ granted Claimant’s motion to deem all well-pleaded factual averments of the claim petition admitted because of Employer’s failure to file a timely answer, pursuant to this Court’s holding in Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Madara), 423 A.2d 1125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).

2026At all events, such assertions are not properly before us due to Claimant’s failure to appeal the Referee’s determinations timely. 5 “non-negligent conduct beyond [the claimant's] control.” Id. (citations omitted).

2016Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 942 A.2d 194, 198 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 2 The Board also filed a motion to strike Claimant’s brief and dismiss his appeal because Claimant waived all claims.

2024Id. 14 actual notice of the injury.

2020See Daniels, 828 A.2d at 1052 .

2017(Claimant’s brief at 60.) To support his argument, Claimant cites two decisions of our Supreme Court: McHugh v. McHugh, 40 A. 410 (Pa. 1898), and Petrone v. Moffat Coal Co., 233 A.2d 891 (Pa. 1967).

1972The Board concluded that this evidence sustained the employer’s burden of proving that work was available to the claimant under the rule of Petrone v. Moffat Coal Company, 427 Pa. 5 , 233 A. 2d 891 (1967), and Barrett v. Otis Elevator Company, 431 Pa. 446 , 246 A. 2d 668 (1968).

2017There are no hearing transcripts from which we may determine whether the notice was admitted into evidence. 8 evidence.” Greenwich Collieries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Buck), 664 A.2d 703, 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

1998Greenwich Collieries v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Buck), 664 A.2d 703 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (en banc), and Claimant concedes as much: “[i]t is acknowledged that generally a referee [sic] is not required to explain the basis for a credibility determination.” (Claimant’s brief at 17).

2016See Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”); Lucarelli v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Emerson Electric), 546 A.2d 151, 152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 3 1988) (quashing the claimant’s appeal where his brief failed to include a statement of questions involved).

1994Cf. Lucarelli v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Emerson Electric), 119 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 72, 546 A.2d 151 (1988). .

2008Employer based its motion on the guest’s testimony and this court’s decision in Heath v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole), 811 A.2d 90 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (Heath I) 5 (holding that even if a claimant’s allegations of sexual harassment at work are true, any resulting mental injury is not compensable under the Act because section 301(c)(1) operates to remove any claim for that injury from the purview of the Act), vacated and remanded, 580 Pa. 174 , 860 A.2d 25 (2004) (Heath II). 6 Thus, *1258 Employer argued that Claimant’s psychological injuries were

2005Heath v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, (Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole), — Pa. --, 860 A.2d 25, 30 (2004).

2022See Amandeo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Conagra Foods), 37 A.3d 72, 81-82 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (concluding that the WCJ did not err in denying the claimant’s claim petition where “the WCJ issued factual findings supported by substantial evidence,” 14 “based those findings upon credibility determinations supported by objective reasons,” and “[t]hose findings, in turn, support[ed] the WCJ’s conclusion that [the claimant] failed to satisfy his burden of proof”).

2018Id.

2022See Colagreco, 232 A.3d at 978-79; Harrison, 78 A.3d at 705 ; Fluek, 898 A.2d at 19-21.10 CONCLUSION In summary, we conclude that the WCJ did not narrow the scope of acknowledged injuries to Claimant, thus excluding her ongoing symptoms of post- concussive syndrome.

2015According to Claimant, this Court envisioned this type of scenario in Harrison v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Auto Truck Transport Corporation), 78 A.3d 699, 704 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013), in which we acknowledged that there may be instances where the description of a work injury could become an issue during an IRE proceeding, which may result in a WCJ amending an NCP to include additional injuries. 4 Employer responds that accepting Claimant’s argument essentially would preclude an IRE from being valid because a claimant could challenge the validity of an already performed IRE based on injurie