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 from a compensation order related to the Worker's employment. The Worker contended that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in assigning skills points based on her vocation, arguing that the evidence did not support that she successfully performed the vocation of a hotel housekeeper as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Instead, it was found that her experience as a fast food cook supported the WCJ's decision. The Employer/Insurer argued that the Worker's usual and customary work should be characterized as medium-duty rather than heavy.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Argued that the WCJ erred in the assignment of skills points, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish that she successfully performed the vocation of hotel housekeeper, and that the WCJ's application of six skills points was erroneous.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees/Cross-Appellants: Argued that the WCJ erred in characterizing Worker’s usual and customary work as heavy, asserting that her work should be regarded as medium-duty based on the duration of her employment in such roles.

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ erred in the assignment of skills points to the Worker based on her vocation.
• Whether the WCJ erred in characterizing the Worker’s usual and customary work as heavy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ’s determinations regarding both the assignment of skills points and the characterization of the Worker’s usual and customary work.

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring): The Court remained unpersuaded by the Worker's and Employer/Insurer's assertions of error. Regarding the Worker's appeal, the Court found that the evidence of the Worker successfully performing the vocation of a fast food cook supported the WCJ's assignment of skills points, applying the "right for any reason" doctrine to affirm the compensation order on grounds not initially relied upon by the WCJ (paras 3-3). The Court rejected the Worker's contention that her duties aligned more with a "fast-foods worker" rather than a fast food cook, based on her own description of her duties and the definitions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (para 3). Concerning the Employer/Insurer's cross-appeal, the Court concluded that the WCJ's characterization of the Worker’s usual and customary work as heavy was supported by substantial evidence, including the Worker's significant employment history performing heavy work (para 4).