In S. Graaf v. Scranton Counseling Center (WCAB), a pro se claimant petitioned the Commonwealth Court to review a decision by the WCJ dismissing a Claim Petition.
Claimant alleged work injuries including bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and aggravation of cervical degenerative disc disease from typing on a computer at home from her couch rather than a desk. Notably, Claimant had a prior MVA and had been seeing a chiropractor for 38 years. Additionally, Claimant began working for a new employer performing the same tasks before it “became unmanageable” after receiving an increased workload.
The WCJ found Claimant’s testimony not credible with respect to any material issues. The WCJ further credited Employer’s medical expert over Claimant’s medical expert where the two were in conflict because Claimant’s doctor based his opinion on Claimant’s assertions rather than objective findings.
The issues at hand were whether the WCJ disregarded or failed to examine evidence, improperly relied on the medical testimony of Employer’s expert, and allowed inappropriate questioning by Employer.
The Commonwealth Court held that the WCJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence of record and not legally erroneous, confirming that determinations of credibility and evidentiary weight are the prerogative of the WCJ, and the Board may not consider factual issues not raised before the WCJ. A WCJ can accept or reject the opinions of any witness in whole or in part.
