Court Opinion

ID: 9754111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:44:23.288992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:48.971304
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I support the Commonwealth Court’s refusal to accept that the experience of a food delivery person of multiple incidents of robbery at gunpoint over a six-month period can be characterized as anything other than an abnormal working condition. I join the result reached by the majority, solely because I view the WCJ’s statement that Claimant’s medical experts were not persuasive and the ensuing explanation for such statement as constituting a credibility determination that is binding on appeal. But see Canavan v. WCAB (B & D Mining Co.), 769 A.2d 1250 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (holding that the WCJ’s use of the term “not persuasive” when discussing testimony from a *14medical expert may be subject to different interpretations and remanding for clarification of whether the evidence was rejected on credibility or competency grounds).