Williams 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.

• stating that the WCJ’s express consideration and rejection of testimony is, by definition, not a capricious disregard thereof
• ‘[c]laimant has failed to raise this issue anywhere within his Statement of the Questions Presented, and for that reason, it is waived.’
• a claim that the WCJ could not credit an anesthesiologist over a psychologist with regard to the claimant’s psychological injuries was rejected by this Court
• ‘Aarsand has failed to raise this issue anywhere within his Statement of the Questions Presented, and for that reason, it is waived.’
• ‘Claimant has failed to raise this issue anywhere within his Statement of the Questions Presented, and for that reason, it is waived.’
• “Capricious disregard occurs only when the fact-finder deliberately ignores relevant, competent evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).