# Steglik v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · June 19, 2000 · 755 A.2d 69

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645768

## Case

- **Full name:** Regina STEGLIK, Petitioner, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (DELTA GULF CORPORATION), Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 19, 2000
- **Citations:** 755 A.2d 69; 2000 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 344
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Friedman
- **Judges:** Doyle, Colins, Smith, Pellegrini, Friedman, Kelley, Leadbetter
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645768

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that merely listing conclusion of law by number is insufficient to preserve legal issue for appeal

## Opinion text

FRIEDMAN, Judge,
concurring.
Based on Regina Steglik’s (Claimant) failure to preserve her claims for review, I concur with the result reached by the majority here. However, I must voice my disagreement with the majority’s determination that Claimant’s arguments would be meritless even if they had not been waived. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 753 A.2d 293 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), I agree with Claimant’s contention that the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) failed to issue a reasoned decision as defined by section 422(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 834.
*77 Under section 422(a) of the Act, as amended in 1996, a “reasoned” decision was required to include the WCJ’s reasons for accepting certain specified evidence and also to include adequate reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent, conflicting evidence. I do not believe we can ignore this unambiguous language and still satisfy the intent of the legislature. Here, the WCJ’s findings make almost no reference to any of the medical testimony presented, and the WCJ makes no attempt to explain why he accepted the opinion of Delta Gulf Corporation’s (Employer) medical expert on causation over the competent, conflicting opinion offered by Claimant’s medical expert. Consequently, I believe that the WCJ’s decision fails to comply with section 422(a) of the Act and that the majority’s conclusion to the contrary renders the 1996 amendments to section 422(a) of the Act meaningless.
Judge PELLEGRINI joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645768. Public record. Not legal advice.