Solomon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The WCJ must make credibility and weight of the evidence determinations regarding any irregularity or deficiency of the contested evidence. Here, as in Seamon and Bolinsky , the breadth of information reviewed is a factor which the fact-finder may consider, but is no more conclusive than any other single factor considered in evaluating the credibility of conflicting expert opinions. We decline the invitation to declare a [utilization review] reviewer’s opinion automatically incompetent for failure to review the entire medical file or speak with the health care provider.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Havenstrite v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

2. “The weight and credibility of the UR report, as with any other evidence, is for the fact-finder. Any deficiency or irregularity in the UR process can be argued before and considered by the WCJ in determining the weight and credibility of the UR evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sweigart v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board