PEC Contracting Engineers 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.

• recognizing that WCJ possesses the “prerogative to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded evidence”
• holding that the WCJ did not err by considering the frequency with which employer’s medical expert testified as a medical witness and the short duration the physician spent examining the claimant
• noting that Section 422(a) does not require “adequate reasons,” but an adequate explanation for those reasons, in order for appellate review to be meaningful
• noting that Section 422(a) does not require “adequate reasons,” but an adequate explanation for those reasons, in order for appellate review to be meaningful
• reasoned decision where WCJ credited claimant’s expert because of treatment history and rejecting employer’s expert who saw claimant twice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).