Amandeo v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 67
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant Frank Amandeo worked as a utility worker for Conagra Foods from 1983 until plant closure in 2007.
- He filed a workers' compensation petition in March 2009, alleging a December 1, 2006 work injury from heavy lifting and a co-worker dropping a skid.
- The WCJ credited Employer's medical expert and discredited Claimant's expert, denying compensability based on lack of credible evidence.
- Board affirmed, finding the WCJ's credibility determinations supported by the record; no error in weight of evidence analysis.
- On review, Claimant argued the WCJ failed to render a reasoned decision and erred in credibility findings; Court affirmed the denial.
- Court held the WCJ's decision satisfied the reasoned-decision requirement and was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoned-decision requirement met? | Amandeo contends WCJ failed to provide objective credibility reasoning. | Employer argues summaries plus objective bases sufficed for credibility. | Yes; WCJ provided objective credibility reasoning meeting Section 422(a). |
| Credibility of December 2006 incident established? | Amandeo asserts lack of credible support for the December 2006 injury. | Employer asserts credibility determined by demeanor and evidence supports no work injury. | Substantial evidence supports the WCJ's credibility determinations. |
| Credit given to medical experts justified? | Amandeo claims Dr. McHugh and Dr. Dworkin lacked proper foundation. | Employer asserts Dr. McHugh's expertise and record-based analysis justify credibility. | Yes; credible basis for accepting Dr. McHugh and rejecting Dr. Dworkin. |
| Capricious disregard of evidence? | Amandeo argues WCJ capriciously disregarded favorable evidence. | Employer contends WCJ adequately explained why evidence was not persuasive. | No; decision not a capricious disregard; supported by objective credibility findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Crossing Constr. Co.), 893 A.2d 191 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (reasoned-decision review requires adequate explanation for credibility)
- Clear Channel Broad. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Perry), 938 A.2d 1150 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (summaries plus objective explanation satisfy reasoned-decision requirement)
- Gumm v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (J. Allan Steel), 942 A.2d 222 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (objective basis can support credibility determinations)
- Daniels v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 574 Pa. 61, 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (demeanor observations can satisfy reasoned-decision requirement)
- Higgins v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 854 A.2d 1002 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (court requires substantive basis for credibility, not mere record gaps)
- Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. (Marlowe), 571 Pa. 189, 812 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002) (capricious-disregard review is appropriate in appellate review)