The Pennsylvania appellate courts have consistently determined that a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) is the final arbiter of credibility in a PA workers’ compensation case. Short of finding that a credibility determination by the WCJ is “arbitrary and capricious,” these determinations are to be accepted by the courts. This makes sense, since it is the WCJ who actually sees and evaluates the witnesses and the evidence directly.
Every once in a while, though, a WCJ’s credibility determinations are challenged on appeal, often by casting the attack in a different light. Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stopped such an effort by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) in the case of Lawry v. County of Butler (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board).
In Lawry, the WCJ heard the testimony of the injured worker and reviewed the medical evidence, and largely denied the insurance carrier’s Petition to Terminate benefits. To be specific, the WCJ found that the injured worker had fully recovered from “right thumb strain/sprain and right ulnar collateral ligament tear.” Importantly, though, the WCJ also “determined that Employer failed to meet its burden of proving that Claimant fully recovered from her RSD/CRPS.”