Court Opinion

ID: 9751404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:24:25.046436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:44.574906
License: Public Domain

DOYLE, President Judge,
Dissenting.
Because I disagree with the Majority that the surveillance videotape depicting Claimant’s involvement in certain physical activities was not properly admitted into evidence in Claimant’s case-in-chief, I must now dissent.
In doing so, I agree with Employer (and even the Majority acknowledges) that, nowhere in the Special Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure Before Referees, 34 Pa.Code §§ 131.1-131.122, does it indicate that hearings must be transcribed. In addition, while Section 418 of the Workers’ Compensation Act,1 77 P.S. § 833, provides that a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) must make “a record of hearings,” it does not indicate that all hearings must be memorialized. Claimant essentially urges this Court to hold that all hearings, whether evidentiary or otherwise, must be transcribed and made of record. However, this is a procedural issue where the Department of Labor and Industry, pursuant to Section 422(e) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 836, has been granted authority to adopt rules to govern administrative proceedings before WCJs. Again, no rule was adopted requiring that all hearings before a WCJ must be transcribed and made of record. Moreover, the WCJ, in his decision, indicated that it was common practice for a *1078WCJ to allow submissions off-the-record; therefore, it was apparently proper for him to admit certain evidence dining an off-the-record hearing.
The salient question then becomes whether the WCJ did, in fact, admit Employer’s surveillance videotape for purposes of its case-in-chief at the off-the-record hearing and, as previously indicated, my review of the record after remand satisfies me that the WCJ did do so. The WCJ stated that, “[t]he surveillance video had been submitted for Supersedeas purposes and was then presented as defense exhibit No. 1 and accepted by this Court.” (WCJ’s opinion at 3). (Emphasis added.) I believe that this statement is sufficient to conclude that the tape was admitted for substantive purposes, and I would therefore hold that the surveillance videotape was properly admitted into evidence during the off-the-record hearing, and that Dr. Tadduni could rely on the videotape in forming his medical opinion.2 See Thompson v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Freight Division), 683 A.2d 1316 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (medical experts may rely on surveillance videotapes in forming their expert opinions so long as there is substantial, competent evidence of record to support their position).
Although I voice my disdain for a procedure whereby evidence may be submitted at off-the-record hearings because I believe it tends to preclude effective appellate review, for the reasons set forth above, responsibility for ameliorating such a practice does not he with this Court.3 Accordingly, I would reverse the Board’s order and grant Employer’s termination petition.

. Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended (Act). Section 418 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 833, was added by Section 6 of the Act of June 26, 1919, P.L. 642.

. I recognize that Dr. Tadduni could not rely exclusively on the surveillance videotape in rendering his opinion. I believe, however, that Dr. Tadduni based his opinion, not just on the videotape, but also upon his physical examination of Claimant, along with numerous medical records and reports generated by other physicians who examined Claimant. Thus, there was other substantial, competent evidence of record to support Dr. Tadduni’s position.

. I also note that Claimant does not raise the issue of whether the failure to transcribe violates Section 504 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 504.