McCray v. W.C.A.B

15 Citing cases

  1. Ciarolla v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    239 A.3d 204 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976) ; McCray v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Preschool Development Programs, Inc.) , 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 402, 648 A.2d 348 (1994). This Court has further held that the use of hearsay evidence is limited to cases where there is corroborating evidence and there is no objection on the record.

  2. Steeple v. W.C.A.B

    796 A.2d 394 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    Thus, we conclude that it was reasonable for Employer to file such a petition because of the testimony it had in its possession at the time of filing. The following year after Employer's petition was filed, this Court decided McCray v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Preschool Development Programs, Inc.), 648 A.2d 348 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 540 Pa. 608, 655 A.2d 995 (1995). In McCray, this Court held, inter alia, that the testimony of a vocational witness concerning statements made by a prospective employer regarding whether a claimant had applied for a job and what the claimant's conduct was during the interview was inadmissible hearsay.

  3. Pertile v. W.C.A.B

    546 Pa. 569 (Pa. 1997)   Cited 4 times

    Referee's Decision, Conclusions of Law, No. 4, p. 8. In McCray v. W.C.A.B., 167 Pa. Commw. 402, 409-10, 648 A.2d 348, 351-52 (1994), Commonwealth Court explained Acme: In Acme we explained in a footnote that the testimony of employer's expert vocational witness with regard to the specific job duties connected with the work and the position was admissible where the witness gained her information from personal observation and where the information was of "the type reasonably relied on by an expert in the particular field in forming an opinion on the subject."

  4. Joyce v. W.C.A.B

    550 Pa. 244 (Pa. 1996)   Cited 7 times
    Granting reargument where Court misapprehended inadmissible hearsay evidence as relating to job availability instead of claimant's follow-through on job referral

    Thus, some specific findings must be articulated to support such a determination. McCray v. W.C.A.B. (Preschool Development Programs, Inc.), 167 Pa. Commw. 402, 411, 648 A.2d 348, 352 (1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 608, 655 A.2d 995 (1995). Here the referee failed to make these necessary specific findings to support his determination.

  5. Joyce v. W.C.A.B

    545 Pa. 135 (Pa. 1996)   Cited 11 times

    Appellant relies upon Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commw. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976), which addressed the issue of hearsay evidence in administrative proceedings. See also McCray v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Preschool Development Programs, Inc.), 167 Pa. Commw. 402, 648 A.2d 348 (1994), alloc. denied, 540 Pa. 608, 655 A.2d 995 (1995). The Employer counters by arguing that the courts have consistently held that an expert witness may rely on hearsay testimony if as an expert he would reasonably rely on such information in formulating his opinions.

  6. Mithani v. W.C.A.B

    730 A.2d 566 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1999)   Cited 5 times

    Agresta v. Gillespie, 158 Pa. Commw. 230, 631 A.2d 722, 780 (1993), overruled on other grounds in City of Philadelphia Police Department v. Gray, 534 Pa. 467, 633 A.2d 1090 (1993) (when dealing with hearsay within hearsay, the statement in question must be examined on each level, and if at each level the statement would be admissible, then the combination will also be admissible.); Commonwealth v. Stivala, 435 Pa. Super. 176, 645 A.2d 257, 265 n. 5 (1994), allocatur denied, 540 Pa. 581, 655 A.2d 513 (1994). Claimant's reliance upon McCray v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Preschool Development Programs, Inc.), 167 Pa. Commw. 402, 648 A.2d 348 (1994), allocatur denied, 540 Pa. 608, 655 A.2d 995 (1995) is misplaced. Therein, this court held that the testimony of a vocational counselor as to what prospective employers told her concerning a candidate, who the vocational counselor referred to them, was inadmissible hearsay and no exception to the hearsay was applicable. Herein, there is an exception to the hearsay rule which is applicable and which renders the challenged testimony admissible and competent.

  7. SCHOOL DIST., PHILADELPHIA v. WCAB

    723 A.2d 1087 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1999)   Cited 1 times
    Vacating and remanding for the taking of additional evidence, if necessary, and for the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to make additional necessary findings and conclusions in accordance with the law

    (WCJ's Findings of Fact, No. 6; O.R., Claimant's 2/9/95 letter.) Employer withdrew the petition because of this court's decision in McCray v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pre-School Development Programs, Inc.), 648 A.2d 348 (Pa.Commw. 1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 608, 655 A.2d 995 (1995). Employer explained that its vocational rehabilitation expert had located 12 jobs for Claimant and that Claimant had failed to apply for two of the positions.

  8. Calcara v. W.C.A.B

    706 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1998)   Cited 16 times
    Discussing Walker and holding that "the failure of employer's counsel to object to the hearsay evidence does not affect the Claimant's burden to present competent medical evidence" and that "Claimant needed to corroborate the out-of-court statement of [her doctor] with other competent medical evidence [or to depose her doctor] to adequately establish a causal connection between the injury and her employment"

    The Walker principle, of course, has been adopted in other areas of administrative law as well as unemployment compensation. See McCray v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Preschool Development Programs, Inc.), 167 Pa. Commw. 402, 648 A.2d 348 (1994), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 540 Pa. 608, 655 A.d 995 (1995). In the present case, the record indicates that, although Employer's counsel did initially object to the introduction of Dr. Deibler's report, that objection was later withdrawn.

  9. Crown Services, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

    682 A.2d 1333 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1996)   Cited 4 times

    We note that under the Walker rule, this Court has held that a medical report, even if unobjected to, does not constitute substantial evidence and cannot support an independent finding of a WCJ. See McCray v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Preschool Development Programs, Inc.), 167 Pa. Commw. 402, 648 A.2d 348 (1994), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 540 Pa. 608, 655 A.2d 995 (1995); Flanagan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Steel Corp.), 143 Pa. Commw. 92, 598 A.2d 613 (1991). Employer suggests that Dr. Zipay did not make as thorough an investigation of Claimant's entire medical history as was required, and made unwarranted assumptions and inferences in reaching her medical conclusion.

  10. Taylor v. Pa. Human Relations Com'n

    681 A.2d 228 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1996)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that Pennsylvania has adopted McDonnell Douglas framework for cases brought under section 5 of the PHRA and applying same test

    However, to the extent the information contained on the resume is corroborated by Mr. Scully's testimony, it may provide substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner findings of fact. See McCray v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Preschool Development Programs, Inc.), 167 Pa. Commw. 402, 648 A.2d 348 (1994), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 540 Pa. 608, 655 A.2d 995 (1995) (hearsay evidence admitted without objection may support a finding of fact if it is corroborated by competent evidence in the record). Finally, Mr. Taylor argues that the hearing examiner erred in finding that the advertised position was for a "regional property manager" (Finding of Fact 9), rather than a building or site manager.