Griffiths v. Workers's Comp. Appeal Bd.

88 Citing cases

  1. Amazon.com Servs. v. Snyder

    310 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 2, 2024)

    Accordingly, a WCJ is free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness, in whole or in part, including medical witnesses. Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).

  2. Chrzanowski v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Philadelphia Parking Authority)

    590 C.D. 2020 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 16, 2021)

    Inglis House v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592, 594 (Pa. 1993). "It is well established that the WCJ is the ultimate fact finder and is empowered to determine witness credibility and evidentiary weight." Griffiths v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). As the ultimate fact finder, the WCJ's findings are binding on appeal if they are supported by substantial evidence.

  3. Giffear v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 977 C.D. 2019 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 7, 2020)

    However, the burden of proof is dependent upon how the claimant's benefits were suspended or modified. Mitchell, 796 A.2d at 1019; Griffiths v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). Where a claimant's benefits are suspended for failing to accept an open and available job within his medical restrictions and he subsequently seeks a reinstatement of those benefits, the burden is on the claimant to show that his injury has worsened and that he is no longer able to perform the job or jobs that he was previously found to be capable of performing.

  4. Benedict v. Hard Chrome Specialists, Inc.

    746 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 20, 2024)

    , 14 A.3d 922, 928 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011)] (quoting Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000)). Sadler v. Phila. Coca-Cola (Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.), 269 A.3d 690, 716 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022).

  5. Goodz v. Cnty. of Lancaster

    648 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jun. 3, 2024)

    , 14 A.3d 922, 928 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011)] (quoting Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000)). Sadler v. Phila. Coca-Cola (Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.),

  6. Lawry v. Cnty. of Butler

    310 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    "The WCJ, therefore, is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness, including medical witnesses." Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). Baumann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kellogg Co.), 147 A.3d 1283, 1290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (emphasis added).

  7. Hernandez v. Four Seasons Produce (Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.)

    257 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 5, 2024)

    It is well established that the WCJ is the ultimate factfinder and is empowered to determine witness credibility and evidentiary weight. Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). The WCJ is therefore free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness, including medical witnesses.

  8. Pa. Liquor Control Bd. v. Demace

    1407 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 26, 2024)

    Turning to Employer's contention, interwoven throughout its argument section, that the WCJ's determination was contrary to the substantial, competent evidence of record, it is well established that the WCJ is the ultimate fact finder and is empowered to determine witness credibility and evidentiary weight. Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).

  9. Sesay v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth.

    551 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 31, 2024)

    "[T]he WCJ is the ultimate finder of fact and the exclusive arbiter of credibility and evidentiary weight," Thompson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (USF&G Co.), 781 A.2d 1146, 1150 (Pa. 2001), and "[t]he WCJ, therefore, is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness, including medical witnesses." Griffiths v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). Here, because the WCJ's findings regarding Dr. Schindler's testimony are supported by substantial evidence, they will not be disturbed on appeal.

  10. Marriott Int'l v. Loguidice

    43 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 3, 2024)

    For this reason, the WCJ may "accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness, including medical witnesses." Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). In Lewis, relied upon by Claimant and a majority of the Board, our Supreme Court examined an employer's burden of proof when litigating a termination petition after the denial of a prior termination petition.