Court Opinion

ID: 9766439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:48:30.083569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:22.623667
License: Public Domain

SILVESTRI, Senior Judge.
Richard Biagini (Claimant) appeals from the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the referee’s order dismissing Claimant’s claim petition. Two issues have been raised for our review in this appeal, namely, whether Claimant was denied due process when a referee, other than the referee who presided at the hearings, issued a decision and order in this matter prior to Claimant receiving notification of said substitution; and whether Claimant was acting within the scope of his employment when he was injured. We will address the facts and arguments as to each of these issues separately.

Claimant’s Due Process claim

This case was assigned to referee Frank C. Roney on January 7, 1991. The first of three hearings began in the matter on February 5,1991. Referee Kathleen Vallely presided at the initial hearing and the two subsequent hearings held on February 12, 1991 and February 25, 1991. At the conclu*651sion of all the hearings, on May 28, 1991, Referee Roney issued the decision and order at issue herein.
Claimant argues that it was a violation of his due process rights when Referee Roney, rather than Referee Vallely, issued the decision and order in this matter because, Claimant maintains, Referee Vallely had an opportunity to observe the live witnesses who testified at the hearings and thus had a greater opportunity to assess witness credibility. Additionally, Claimant asserts that because he was not given notice of the fact, prior to a decision being rendered, that Referee Roney, rather than Referee Vallely, would be issuing the decision and order, he was deprived of his due process rights as he was not afforded an opportunity to object to said substitution.
Initially, we note that the practice of one tribunal assessing credibility and rendering a decision where another tribunal has received the actual testimony is nothing new in the law. To the contrary, in unemployment compensation cases it is the referee that conducts evidentiary hearings, while the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is the ultimate fact-finder and issues findings of fact and conclusions of law. In the case of Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 509 Pa. 267, 501 A.2d 1383 (1985), our Supreme Court discussed this practice where a due process challenge was asserted. The Court stated:
It may be wiser, more efficient or more expedient to entrust administrative determinations of fact based on credibility to the person who hears the evidence. However, that judgment is one for the legislature, not the judiciary.... [T]he notion that credibility evaluations depend on the observation of live witnesses while they testify ... is often important, but it is not the only factor to be considered in deciding who is to evaluate credibility on conflicting evidence. Considerations of expertise, uniformity of decision and control over policy are also relevant. Besides, a rule embodying that proposition would preclude a factfinder from weighing depositions against live evidence, or documents or exhibits against witness’s testimony, a practice *652common and necessary in both administrative and judicial fact finding. We decline to adopt such a rule.
Peak, 509 Pa. at 278-279, 501 A.2d at 1389-1390.
Section 415 of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act1 specifically authorizes the Bureau of Worker’s Compensation to substitute one referee for another in a workmen’s compensation proceeding. Section 415 provides:
Transfer of petition to another referee
At any time before an award or disallowance of compensation or order has been made by a referee to whom a petition has been assigned, the department may order such petition heard before any other referee. Unless the department shall otherwise order, the testimony taken before the original referee shall be considered as though taken before the substituted referee.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Arena v. Packaging Systems Corp., 510 Pa. 34, 507 A.2d 18 (1986), upheld the substitution of a referee, other than the referee who received the testimony in the case, reasoning that “the referee, as well as the Board, deals exclusively with workmen’s compensation cases and has developed expertise in the area.” Arena, 510 Pa. at 35 n. 2, 507 A.2d at 19 n. 2.
Although Claimant does not specifically assert a constitutional challenge to the Bureau’s authority pursuant to Section 415, Claimant maintains that here his constitutional rights were violated because he was not notified of the substitution of one referee for another prior to a decision being rendered. Claimant asserts that because he was not provided prior notification, he was deprived of an opportunity to make objections to the substitution. However, a review of the record demonstrates that Claimant first became aware of the substitution when he received the referee’s decision. This being the case, Claimant, in his appeal to the Board, in addition to alleging errors regarding the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, specifically raised before the Board the *653matter of the Bureau’s substitution of one referee for another. Claimant asserted the following:
The case should have been decided by Referee Yallely, not Referee Roney. The entire case was heard by Referee Vallely. Referee Roney never saw the claimant. The parties agreed that Referee Vallely would decide the case. (R.R. 73a).
The forgoing, however, is merely a statement of what transpired. The Claimant did not, in his appeal to the Board, set forth any constitutional, statutory or regulatory violations as a result of the Bureau’s substitution of one referee for another.2 Claimant clearly had an “opportunity” to note any objections to the Bureau’s substitution of one referee for another in his appeal to the Board which he failed to do.
Likewise, Claimant, in his appeal to this Court, although engaging in an academic exposition on entitlement to due process, fails to delineate in what manner his due process rights have been diminished by the substitution. All Claimant notes to this Court is the mere lack of opportunity to raise objections without indicating what specific objections he would have raised. Stated another way, Claimant has failed to assert that the result would have been different absent the substitution.
It is not our function as an appellate court to decide questions in the abstract. Our function is to examine actual issues and controversies and determine their merit. See In re Condemnation by Commonwealth Department of Transportation, 100 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 546, 515 A.2d 102 (1986); see also Commonwealth v. County of Bucks, 8 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 295, 302 A.2d 897 (1973).
Claimant has failed to demonstrate what due process rights of his have been violated and the effect thereof.

*654
Claimant’s claim petition

Claimant was employed by Merit Contracting Company (Employer) as a working foreman. On April 12, 1990, while driving to a job site, Claimant was involved in an automobile accident. On December 13, 1990, Claimant filed a claim petition, alleging that on April 12, 1990 he sustained work-related injuries in the nature of “a serious head injury (depressed skull fracture) in a coma for weeks — -with two (2) collapsed lungs — broken leg.” (R.R. 2a). Employer filed a timely answer denying the allegations contained in the claim petition.
The sole question before the referee was whether Claimant was within the scope of employment when his injuries occurred. Specifically, Claimant argued that he fell within the exceptions to the general rule that injuries sustained by an employee while traveling to and from work are not considered to have occurred while in the scope and course of employment. Setley v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 69 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 241, 451 A.2d 10 (1982).3
In support of his petition, Claimant presented his own testimony and that of his wife. Claimant’s wife testified that at the time Claimant was injured he was on assignment at a job site in Morgantown, West Virginia. She stated that Claimant used his own truck to drive to and from work and that Employer provided him a credit card to purchase gas for the truck. However, Claimant’s wife was unable to testify as to whether Claimant was permitted to use the credit card to purchase gas for Claimant’s travel to and from work, or whether Claimant was limited to using the card for gas used at his job site. Claimant also testified that he was provided a *655credit card from Employer in order to purchase gas and oil for his truck. Claimant, however, failed to testify as to whether he was authorized to purchase gas for his travel to and from work.
Employer presented the testimony of Clem Gigliotti, Employer’s president. He testified that Claimant worked on the Morgantown job site for approximately four months. He explained that when a foreman is assigned a work site he remains at the site until the project is completed. Gigliotti also explained that Employer implemented a program whereby salaried employee’s, such as Claimant, were given the option of using their own truck at a job site to haul materials. If the employee did use their own truck, they would be paid $5.00 a day for the truck’s use. Additionally, Gigliotti explained that employees who participated in the program were given a credit card to purchase gas, but that the card was to be used only to purchase gas used at the job site. Gigliotti further stated that no employee was required to provide the use of a truck.
Based upon the testimony presented in the matter, the referee made the following relevant findings:
5. Claimant and the defendant had no written or oral contract that provided for claimant’s transportation to and from work. Defendant’s president testified that “when all the men are hired, they are hired with the understanding that when they get to the job, they start work.”
6. There were occasions when claimant would drive his own truck to a job site and claimant’s truck would be used for hauling material at the job site. On such occasions, claimant was paid $5.00 for the use of his truck. Claimant was not required by the defendant to use his truck or even to have a truck. According to the testimony of defendant’s president, the choice of whether to bring a truck to the job site was entirely claimant’s and that other “management people who don’t even have trucks, the ownership or possession of a truck is not a requirement or prerequisite, you are given management because you are good at what you do.”
*6567. With respect to a gas credit card which was issued by defendant to the claimant defendant’s president testified and your Referee finds that the credit card was to be used to purchase gas and oil for the same while used at the job site and was not intended to be used to pay for gas and oil used while traveling to and from work. Claimant did not testify that he used the credit card for gas used traveling to and from the job site.
8. Before claimant’s accident, he had driven to the same job site each working day for four months. There is no evidence of record that the claimant was required to leave this job site once he arrived there each work day. Your Referee finds defendant’s job site in Morgantown, West Virginia as a fixed place of work for the claimant.
9. Claimant was not on a special mission for the defendant on the date of his accident and he was not furthering the business of the defendant at the said time.
(R.R. 78a-79a).
The referee, therefore, concluded that Claimant was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and dismissed his claim petition.
On appeal, Claimant maintains that the referee erred in determining that he was not within the scope of his employment at the time of his injury. We disagree.
Our scope of review is to determine whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether errors of law have been committed. Berks County Home v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Schnable), 145 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 582, 604 A.2d 767 (1992). Whether a claimant was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of injury is a question of law to be determined on the basis of the findings of fact. Rittner v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Rittner), 76 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 596, 464 A.2d 675 (1983).
It is clear that the referee based his findings on Employer’s witness Clem Gigliotti. Our review of the record reveals that *657based upon Giglioiti’s testimony, the referee’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, wo conclude that the findings, being supported by substantial evidence, sustain the referee’s conclusion that claimant was not within the scope of his employment at the time of his injury. Accordingly, we will affirm the Board’s order.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 1993, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board dated April 29, 1992 is affirmed.

. Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 851.

. Ordinarily were there is a substitution of one referee for another, the usual objection, among others, is that the substituted referee has a bias or prejudice as to one of the parties which may entitle said party to a recusal of the referee. Here, significantly, even this most obvious objection was not asserted.

. The four exceptions to the general "coming and going” rule are as follows:
(1) Claimant's employment contract includes transportation to and from work;
(2) Claimant has no fixed place of work;
(3) Claimant is on a special mission for employer; or
(4) Special circumstances are such that claimant was furthering the business of the employer.
Rittner, 76 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 60, 464 A.2d at 678.