Our standard of review is limited to a determination of whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether an error of law was committed. Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673, 676 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). In her brief, Claimant argues these two issues as one.
Our standard of review is limited to a determination of whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether an error of law was committed. Morey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673, 676 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). III. Discussion
Moreover, the WCJ may choose to rely on one medical expert over another. Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673, 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). A WCJ's credibility and evidentiary determinations are binding on appeal unless made arbitrarily and capriciously.Casne v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (STAT Couriers, Inc.), 962 A.2d 14, 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). A capricious disregard of evidence exists when there is a willful and deliberate disregard of competent testimony and relevant evidence which one of ordinary intelligence could not possibly have avoided in reaching a result.
Id.; Greenwich Collieries v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Buck), 664 A.2d 703, 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Furthermore, the WCJ may choose to rely on the opinion of one medical expert over that of another and may rely on the testimony of a single expert even where there is conflicting expert evidence. Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673, 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Determinations of witness credibility and evidentiary weight are not subject to appellate review except where made arbitrarily and capriciously. Casne v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (STAT Couriers, Inc.), 962 A.2d 14, 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). We conclude that, rather than being replete with errors as Claimant asserts, the WCJ's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and his conclusion of law that Claimant had not met her burden on the claim petition logically followed from these findings.
Moreover, the WCJ may choose to rely on one medical expert over another. Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethernergy Mines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673, 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). A WCJ's credibility and evidentiary determinations are binding on appeal unless made arbitrarily and capriciously.Casne v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (STAT Couriers, Inc.), 962 A.2d 14, 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). A capricious disregard of evidence exists when there is a willful and deliberate disregard of competent testimony and relevant evidence which one of ordinary intelligence could not possibly have avoided in reaching a result.
(Claimant Ex. 2, Muller Dep. at 49-50, R.R. at 107a-108a.) Because the WCJ's findings of fact concerning Claimant's recovery from her right knee surgery and continuing disability with respect to her right knee are supported by substantial evidence, the Board was not free to substitute its own, different findings as to the length of Claimant's disability. Scher v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 740 A.2d 741, 746 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999); Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (BethenergyMines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673, 676-78 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). The Board therefore exceeded its authority in ruling that Claimant's right knee disability ceased by February 8, 2013, and its suspension of Claimant's disability benefits must be reversed.
Moreover, a WCJ may choose to rely on one medical expert over another. Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethernergy Mines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673, 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). A claimant seeking to advance a claim petition bears the burden of proving all of the elements necessary to support the award of compensation, including establishing a causal relationship between the claimant's injury and his disability.
Second, Claimant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that Employer did not make a "payment" to Claimant. This Court is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated or whether errors of law were committed. Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673, 676 n. 6 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). We begin with Claimant's second issue because Claimant's first issue, whether Employer violated the Act, depends solely on whether Employer ever issued Claimant a "payment."
Our standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S.A. ยง 704; Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). On appeal, Employer raises the following issues before this Court: (1) whether the Board lacked jurisdiction to decide Claimant's date of injury since neither party appealed that finding of the WCJ; (2) whether the WCJ and the Board erred in ordering the payment of benefits to Claimant before Employer had notice of the injury; (3) whether the WCJ erred in awarding a healing period when Claimant was retired; and (4) whether the WCJ erred by awarding litigation costs.
Our standard of review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether an error of law was committed. Morey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Bethenergy Mines, Inc.), 684 A.2d 673 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). Section 306(b)(2) of the Act now provides, in part, as follows: