Court Opinion

ID: 9728992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:22:18.412914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:54.161676
License: Public Domain

ROUSE, Acting P. J.
I concur, but not without comment.
Admittedly, the question of whether this particular activity was a reasonable expectancy of petitioner’s employment is a legal issue which this court may properly redetermine, based upon facts set forth in the record. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to “second guess” the workers’ compensation judge *265(a specialist in that field) whose adjudication has been reviewed and indorsed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, in what, in my perception, is a close case. Since substantial evidence supports that judge’s conclusion I would hold that his determination of the matter must prevail were it not for those cases cited wherein awards of compensation were made in situations which are, in my judgment, factually indistinguishable from petitioner’s case.
One of the functions of an appellate court in announcing its decision is to ensure uniformity and consistency in the rules applied by various inferior tribunals. I believe that is what the decision in this case seeks to accomplish, and it is for this limited reason that I concur in the opinion.