Court Opinion

ID: 9645784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:35:07.317193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:31.578681
License: Public Domain

FRIEDMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 753 A.2d 293, (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), I agree with Supervalu, Inc. (formerly Wetterau, Inc.) and Helmsman Management Services, Inc. (together, Employer) that the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) failed to issue a reasoned decision as required under section 422(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act1 (Act).
A reasoned decision is one wherein the WCJ, “when faced with conflicting evidence, ... adequately explain[s] the reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent evidence.” 77 P.S. § 834. Even when the WCJ is faced with uncontrovert-ed evidence, section 422(a) of the Act requires the WCJ to identify such evidence and adequately explain the reasons for rejecting it. Thus, although the reasoned decision requirement of the Act implicitly recognizes the WCJ’s authority to reject uncontroverted evidence as incredible or unpersuasive, the WCJ now must state the reasons for such determinations. Uncon-troverted evidence may not be rejected for no reason or for an irrational reason. 77 P.S. § 834.
Here, the WCJ’s findings are completely devoid of any credibility determinations.2 In addition, the WCJ failed to address most of the competent record evidence, including the uncontroverted evidence from both physicians that Joseph N. Bow-ser (Claimant) functions at a lesser level than someone with an amputation of the lower leg does. Consequently, I do not believe that this court can conduct a proper appellate review.
Without the necessary findings of fact, and absent adequately explained credibility determinations, I do not see how this court can be certain whether the WCJ ignored competent evidence, rejected the evidence or simply determined that it was not relevant to, or did not support, the finding of a specific loss. We may not *723engage in such speculation. Accordingly, I would remand this case to the WCJ with instructions that the WCJ issue a reasoned decision, enabling this court to properly perform its appellate role and to give meaning to the 1996 amendments to section 422(a) of the Act.
Judge PELLEGRINI joins this dissent.

. Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 834.

. By failing to provide credibility determinations, this case even more clearly violates the reasoned decision requirement than Daniels where the WCJ stated which witnesses she found credible but offered no reason for rejecting conflicting, competent evidence.