Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sewell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 26, 2001Published

1DissentKelley, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

It is well settled that in a workers’ compensation proceeding, the WCJ is the ultimate finder of fact. Hayden v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.), 83 Pa. Cmwlth. 451, 479 A.2d 631 (1984). Thus, determinations as to witness credibility and evidentiary weight are within the exclusive province of the WCJ and are not subject to appellate review. Id. As the finder of fact, the WCJ is entitled to accept or reject even uncontradicted medical testimony in workers’ compensation case. Sherrill v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (School…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hayden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Daniels v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Sherrill v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. Daniels v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API