Payes v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that upon appellate review should be based on WCJ’s actual findings rather than isolated testimony to arrive at a different determination than the WCJ
• holding that, because psychic injury cases are highly fact-sensitive, a reviewing court must give deference to the factfinding functions of the WCJ and limit review to determining whether the WCJ’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence
• holding that, because psychic injury cases are highly fact-sensitive, a reviewing court must give deference to the factfinding functions of the WCJ and limit review to determining whether the WCJ’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence
• explaining that claimants seeking benefits for psychic injuries caused by psychic stimuli must demonstrate that they were subjected to abnormal working conditions
• holding that, even where a “claimant generically belongs to a profession that involves certain levels or types of stress,” the abnormal working condition analysis does not end because, if it did, “the court’s analysis would not rest upon the unique factual findings of the case”
• characterizing basis for award of benefits in case where the claimant was “exposed to abnormal working conditions, not events that were inherent in police work”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Payes v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Payes v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2010-10-06· cited 8×
• Payes v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-05-17· cited 1×