Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections - SCI Chester v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board

Summary

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board order granting Crystal Faison’s claim petition against the Department of Corrections. The court upheld findings that Faison suffered a work-related psychological injury, including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression, after being sexually assaulted by a coworker. The court rejected challenges concerning the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s authority, corroborating evidence, substantial evidence, and reliance on testimony.

Holdings

1. A Workers’ Compensation Judge has authority to determine whether a work incident involving conduct that may constitute a crime caused a compensable work-related psychological injury. Such a determination is not a criminal adjudication and does not determine the alleged perpetrator’s criminal liability.
2. When a claimant credibly testifies about specific actual events causing a psychological injury, corroborating evidence is not required to establish the abnormal working condition.
3. The WCJ’s findings and credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence, were adequately reasoned, and were not arbitrary or capricious.
4. The WCJ’s erroneous reference to and crediting of testimony from an absent witness was harmless error because other competent evidence independently supported the claimant’s credibility and the findings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a Workers’ Compensation Judge had authority to determine, for workers’ compensation purposes, that a work incident involving nonconsensual sexual intercourse occurred and constituted an abnormal working condition, notwithstanding that the evidence implicated possible criminal conduct.
2. Whether corroborating evidence was required to establish the abnormal working condition where the claimant testified to specific actual events.
3. Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s credibility determinations and factual findings were arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or inadequately reasoned.
4. Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge committed reversible error by treating an absent witness’s purported testimony as credible and consistent with the claimant’s testimony.

Disposition

affirmed