Judge Friedman noted a conflict in authority concerning the application of the review standard in cases in which only the burdened party presents medical evidence but both parties present lay testimony or other non-medical evidence. Compare Iacono v. WCAB (Chester Housing Auth.), 155 Pa. Commw. 234, 624 A.2d 814 (1993), aff'd per curiam, 536 Pa. 535, 640 A.2d 408 (1994), with Tomczak v. WCAB (Pro-Aire Transport, Inc.), 150 Pa. Commw. 431, 615 A.2d 993 (1992). Citing to Iacono, Judge Friedman concluded that the controlling position is that, when both parties present evidence before the factfinder, however limited (there being no requirement that such proof include medical evidence), an appellate court must apply the substantial evidence standard to the exclusion of review for capricious disregard.
Instead, I agree with Tynan, albeit for different reasons, that the substantial evidence standard applies here. We recently reconsidered our varying standards of review in Iacono v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Chester Housing Authority), 155 Pa. Commw. 234, 624 A.2d 814 (1993). In Iacono, the WCAB reversed a referee's denial of an employer's termination petition, reasoning that because the employer was the only party to present medical evidence relating to the cause of the claimant's disability, thereby presenting the only competent evidence on that issue, the capricious disregard standard applied.
Southwire Co., 477 S.E.2d at 648; Celanese Fibers Co., 326 S.E.2d at 690; Estridge v. Joslyn Clark Controls, Inc., 482 S.E.2d 577, 580 (S.C.Ct.App. 1997). Thus, to prove a change in the petitioner's condition in this case, the respondents have the burden of establishing that her work-related disability has ceased and, if she continues to be disabled, that the disability is no longer caused by the compensable injury. See Iacono v. W.C.A.B. (Chester Housing), 624 A.2d 814, 817 (Pa.Commw. 1993) (interpreting state law allowing referee to terminate claimant's benefits upon finding that claimant's work-related disability has entirely ceased). Here, the respondents presented substantial medical evidence that the petitioner's original work-related condition (lumbar strain) had resolved, and that her continued disability was related to her pre-existing degenerative disc disease.
Decided: April 22, 1994. Appeal No. 66 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1993, from Order of Commonwealth Court entered April 23, 1993, at No. 687 C.D. 1992, 155 Pa. Commw. 234, 624 A.2d 814 (1993), Reversing Order of Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board entered March 13, 1992, at No. A91-1914. Anthony J. Bilotti, J. Shane Creamer, Jr., for appellant.
Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would deem adequate to support a conclusion. Iacono v. Worker's [sic] Comp. Appeal Bd. (Chester Hous. Auth.), 624 A.2d 814, 817 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). II. Issues
Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would deem adequate to support a conclusion. Iacono v. Worker's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Chester Hous. Auth.), 624 A.2d 814, 817 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). II. Issues
Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would deem adequate to support a conclusion. Iacono v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Chester Housing Auth.), 624 A.2d 814, 817 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). II. Issues
Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would deem adequate to support a conclusion. Iacono v. Worker's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Chester Housing Auth.), 624 A.2d 814, 817 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). III. Discussion
Iacono v. Worker's (sic) Comp. Appeal Bd. (Chester Housing Auth.), 624 A.2d 814, 817 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). Claimant's prayer for relief seeks a reversal of the Board's order to the extent it affirmed the WCJ's denial of her reinstatement petition.
Iacono v. Worker's (sic) Comp. Appeal Bd. (Chester Housing Auth.), 624 A.2d 814, 817 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). III.