AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a Worker who appealed and an Employer/Insurer who cross-appealed following the entry of a compensation order by the Workers’ Compensation Administration. The core of the dispute revolves around the Worker's impairment rating, preinjury physical capacity, and post-injury residual physical capacity. The evidence presented was ambiguous and conflicting in some respects.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) determinations regarding impairment rating, preinjury physical capacity, and post-injury residual physical capacity.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees/Cross-Appellants: Renewed their contention that the evidence should be deemed insufficient to support the WCJ’s determinations on the same issues raised by the Worker.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the WCJ's determinations relative to impairment rating, preinjury physical capacity, and post-injury residual physical capacity.

Disposition

• The appeal and cross-appeal were both affirmed.

Reasons

• Per DUFFY, J., with MEDINA, J., and HENDERSON, J., concurring: The Court found that the parties did not present any new facts, law, or arguments that would persuade the Court that the notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. The Court emphasized that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, which the parties failed to do. The Court acknowledged the evidence was ambiguous and conflicting but deferred to the WCJ's expertise, stating that the evidence provided adequate support for the decision rendered and that it would not reweigh the evidence or draw different inferences from it. The decision to affirm was based on the principle that determinations supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole should not be disturbed (paras 1-4).