stating that this Court’s role in a workers’ compensation case is simply to “determine whether, upon consideration of the evidence as a whole, the WCJ’s findings have the requisite measure of support in the record”
How later courts described this case
- stating that this Court’s role in a workers’ compensation case is simply to “determine whether, upon consideration of the evidence as a whole, the WCJ’s findings have the requisite measure of support in the record”
- holding that the Act is remedial in nature, intended to benefit injured workers and is to be liberally construed
- “The appellate role in worker’s [sic] compensation cases is not to reweigh the evidence or review the credibility of witnesses; rather, the Board ... must simply determine *274 whether, upon consideration of the evidence as a whole, the WCJ’s findings have the requisite measure of support in the record.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 2010 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 345 (2010)
In addition, Sell is readily distinguishable from the situation presented in this case.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
Concurring.
Indeed, as stated in the dissent authored by Mr. Justice Zappala, “... the majority would seemingly require a claimant to know absolutely the causal relationship between an injury and its work relatedness ...” I cannot join in that view. On this record the claimant suspected, but did not know of the possible causal connection between her symptoms and the work environment. Suspicion of a possible causality is less than knowledge of it. The record clearly demonstrates a reasonably diligent effort by claimant to ascertain whether her suspicion had medical foundation, eventuating in a medical confirmation of her suspicion on August 31, 1993. I, thus, concur in the result, but not entirely in the rationale as expressed by the majority.
Justice SAYLOR joins this concurring opinion.