What’s within a WCJ’s Discretion in a Pa. Workers’ Compensation Case?

Courts & Compliance

Recently, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court considered what a workers' compensation judge must do at trial and what deference a WCJ's decisions are entitled to on appeal.

I the case, Lebanon Transit v. Schaeffer, No. 141 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Commw. 04/07/25), the court upheld the WCJ's findings and decision in favor of a claimant that an aggravation of the degenerative joint disease in the claimant's right knee while installing a break drum wheel and tire assembly on a bus entitled him to workers' compensation benefits.

In response to the employer's argument that the WCJ's decision didn't adequately consider the claimant's credibility the court pointed out that:

+ The claimant testified via video before the WCJ about his work injury, his symptoms, and his history of DJD in his right knee.

+ The claimant testified that while he had a history of DJD in his right knee, his right knee problems were aggravated by the work incident.

+ The WCJ had two opportunities to assess the claimant's demeanor and found him credible.

+ The WCJ identified the evidence he accepted, the evidence he rejected, and his reasons therefor.

Along the way, the court examined precedent caselaw for principles on what level of deference a WCJ's credibility determinations are due on appeal. Here's a look at those cases.

Montano v. Advance Stores Co., Inc., 278 A.3d 969 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022)

Regarding credibility determinations, the WCJ is the ultimate fact finder in workers' compensation cases and is entitled to weigh the evidence and assess credibility of witnesses. 

A&J Builders, Inc. v. Verdi, 78 A.3d 1233 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013)

The WCJ's authority over questions of credibility, conflicting evidence, and evidentiary weight is unquestioned.

Berardelli v Bureau of Pers. State Workmen's Ins. Fund, 578 A.2d 1016 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990)

The WCJ is free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness, including medical witnesses, in whole or in part, and the Commonwealth Court will not disturb a WCJ's findings so long as there is substantial evidence in the record to support those findings.

W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. Cochenour, 251 A.3d 467 (Pa. Commw. 2021)

Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

Verizon Pa. Inc. v. Mills, 116 A.3d 1157 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015)

In considering whether a WCJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, the Commonwealth Court "must consider the evidence as a whole, view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the WCJ, and draw all reasonable inferences which are deducible from the evidence in favor of the prevailing party."

Lahr Mech v. Floyd, 933 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007)

It is irrelevant whether the record contains evidence to support findings other than those made by the WCJ; the critical inquiry is whether there is evidence to support the findings actually made.

Williams v. USX Corp.-Fairless Works, 862 A.2d 137 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004)

A WCJ is free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness, including a medical witness, in whole or in part.

Daniels v. Tristate Transp., 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003)

A WCJ's decision is "reasoned" if it "allows for adequate review by the [Board] without further elucidation and if it allows for adequate review by the appellate courts under applicable review standards. A reasoned decision is no more, and no less."

Dorsey v. Crossing Constr. Co., 893 A.2d 191 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006)

A WCJ need not discuss all evidence in the record to issue a "reasoned" decision.

Clear Channel Broad. v. Perry, 938 A.2d 1150 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007)

Where a WCJ summarizes the witnesses' testimony "and adequately explain[s] his credibility determinations," the "reasoned" decision requirement is satisfied.

Amandeo v. Conagra Foods, 37 A.3d 72 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012)

While summaries of testimony alone would be insufficient to satisfy the reasoned decision requirement, where a WCJ summarizes testimony and also objectively explains his credibility determinations, the decision will satisfy the requirement.

Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the Lebanon Transit decision.

Share This Article: