AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Worker-Appellant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) factual findings. The Worker alleged errors in the compensation order issued by the WCJ. The Employer/Insurer-Appellees opposed the Worker’s claims.

Procedural History

  • Workers’ Compensation Administration, Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Issued a compensation order, which the Worker appealed.

Parties' Submissions

  • Worker-Appellant: Argued that the WCJ’s factual findings were not supported by sufficient evidence and raised seven issues challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
  • Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

  • Whether the WCJ’s factual findings were supported by sufficient evidence under the whole record standard of review.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ’s compensation order.

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Wechsler and Castillo JJ. concurring):

The Court applied the whole record standard of review, which requires consideration of both favorable and unfavorable evidence to determine whether a reasonable mind could accept the evidence as adequate to support the WCJ’s conclusions. The Court noted that the Worker failed to provide the necessary information in his docketing statement and memorandum in opposition to evaluate his claims under this standard. Specifically, the Worker did not set out all relevant facts, including those supporting the WCJ’s decision, as required by precedent. The Court emphasized that the burden was on the Worker to demonstrate error and that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as those represented by counsel. As the Worker failed to meet this burden, the Court affirmed the WCJ’s compensation order.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.