Court Opinion

ID: 9645768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:34:35.395843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:31.289864
License: Public Domain

FRIEDMAN, Judge,
concurring.
Based on Regina Steglik’s (Claimant) failure to preserve her claims for review, I concur with the result reached by the majority here. However, I must voice my disagreement with the majority’s determination that Claimant’s arguments would be meritless even if they had not been waived. 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 Claimant’s contention that the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) failed to issue a reasoned decision as defined by section 422(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 834.
*77Under section 422(a) of the Act, as amended in 1996, a “reasoned” decision was required to include the WCJ’s reasons for accepting certain specified evidence and also to include adequate reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent, conflicting evidence. I do not believe we can ignore this unambiguous language and still satisfy the intent of the legislature. Here, the WCJ’s findings make almost no reference to any of the medical testimony presented, and the WCJ makes no attempt to explain why he accepted the opinion of Delta Gulf Corporation’s (Employer) medical expert on causation over the competent, conflicting opinion offered by Claimant’s medical expert. Consequently, I believe that the WCJ’s decision fails to comply with section 422(a) of the Act and that the majority’s conclusion to the contrary renders the 1996 amendments to section 422(a) of the Act meaningless.
Judge PELLEGRINI joins in this concurring opinion.