holding that determination of facts and credibility are solely within the province of the Workers’ Compensation Judge
How later courts described this case
- holding that determination of facts and credibility are solely within the province of the Workers’ Compensation Judge
- holding that a reviewing court does not reweigh the credibility of the witnesses
- the fact that contrary evidence exists does not mean that an administrative adjudication is not based on substantial evidence
- scope of appellate review is whether the record contains substantial evidence that supports the findings of the workmen's compensation judge
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result only. I believe the proper standard to be applied to appellate review of workmen’s compensation cases is “competent evidence.” The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act provides that: “In any such appeal the board may disregard the findings of fact of the referee if not supported by competent evidence.... ” (emphasis added). Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, Act of March 29, 1972, P.L. 159, NO. 61, 77 P.S. § 854. The statute gives great authority to referees as fact-finders. Thus, I believe a higher standard set by the majority would usurp the referee’s function as the ultimate fact-finder. Additionally, it would be anomalous to hold, as the majority does, that on appeal from a referee’s decision, the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board can reverse a referee’s findings of fact only if those facts are not supported by competent evidence. But, on further appeal to *295 the Courts, the Courts can (per the majority) reverse, even if the referee’s findings are supported by competent evidence, if the Courts find that the findings of fact are not supported by “substantial evidence.” Thus, we have different standards of review at different stages of appeal. I find this untenable.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins this Concurring Opinion.