Court Opinion

ID: 9754407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:59:08.210538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:40.676864
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge COHN JUBELIRER.
While I concur with the result reached by the majority, I must express my disagreement and concern with parts of the discussion of the “capricious disregard” standard. The term “capricious disregard” has a long and interesting history, and, not surprisingly, some attendant confusion. While the majority opinion does try to clarify the area, I believe it has also created additional confusion. For example, I find confusing the statement that Wintermyer “did nothing more than expand the capricious disregard standard as a ‘shorthand’ for several existing and overlapping standards of review involving con*29stitutional, procedural requirements and errors of law regarding the way an agency must explain its decision.” (Majority Op. at 25.) While I agree that an agency must explain its decision, the majority’s statement that “[a]n agency is already obligated by federal due process to state reasons for its decisions and state the evidence it relied upon in reaching those decisions,” (Majority Op. at 26) (emphasis added), goes beyond what is currently expected. While most administrative agencies do make findings, I do not believe we currently require them, as a matter of federal due process, to state the evidence they relied upon.
The majority seemingly expands the capricious disregard standard to require additional explanation from administrative agencies than is currently required, by stating that: “[i]f an agency does not explain in its decision why it did not take evidence into consideration, it would now be considered a ‘capricious disregard of the evidence standard,’ ” and that federal due process requires that “[w]hen an agency arrives at a decision where the losing party has presented overwhelming evidence that could require the agency to arrive at a different outcome ... due process ... requires the agency to explain the reasons why it discounted that evidence.” (Majority Op. at 26.) It appears that the majority opinion would now require more explanation from all administrative agencies than the Legislature did in its 19931 and 19962 “reasoned decision” amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act.
I am particularly concerned about a new test that appears in the majority opinion: an “overwhelming evidence” test. Apparently, agencies are now required to give “a meaningful explanation of why the losing party’s overwhelming evidence was not accepted.” (Majority Op. at 27)(emphasis added). The majority opinion provides no guidance regarding how agencies are to determine what constitutes “overwhelming evidence” in a particular case, and I am concerned that it will require this Court to reweigh the evidence in the whole record to make such a determination on appeal.
In summary, I believe this opinion unnecessarily creates more confusion than it resolves. After thorough review of the *30record, I believe that there is more than substantial evidence in the testimony of Doctors Collier and Hanaway to support the Board’s findings and that this simply is not one of those rare cases in which the capricious disregard analysis is warranted. Therefore, while I would affirm the Board, I strongly disagree that we need to rewrite the capricious disregard standard to do so in this case.

. After adoption of the 1993 amendments, Section 422 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 834, provided, in pertinent part:
All parties to an adjudicatory proceeding are entitled to a reasoned decision, containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a whole which clearly and concisely states and explains the rationale for the decisions so that all can determine why and how a particular result was reached. The adjudicator shall specify the evidence upon which the adjudicator relies in conformity with this section. The adjudication shall provide the basis for meaningful appellate review.

. After the adoption of the 1996 amendments, Section 422 of the Act provides, in pertinent part:
All parties to an adjudicatory proceeding are entitled to a reasoned decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a whole which clearly and concisely states and explains the rationale for the decisions so that all can determine why and how a particular result was reached. The workers’ compensation judge shall specify the evidence upon which the workers’ compensation judge relies and state the reasons for accepting it in conformity with this section. When faced with conflicting evidence, the workers' compensation judge must adequately explain the reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent evidence. Uncontroverted evidence may not be rejected for no reason or for an irrational reason; the workers' compensation judge must identify that evidence and explain adequately the reasons for its rejection. The adjudication shall provide the basis for meaningful appellate review.