Standard of Review Substantial Evidence Pennsylvania
In Hoffmaster v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd. 721 A.2d 1152, 1155-1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) our Court described the standard of review for substantial evidence as follows:
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
In performing a substantial evidence analysis, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the factfinder.
Moreover, we are to draw all reasonable inferences which are deducible from the evidence in support of the factfinder's decision in favor of that prevailing party.
Furthermore, in a substantial evidence analysis where both parties present evidence, it does not matter that there is evidence in the record which supports a factual finding contrary to that made by the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ), rather, the pertinent inquiry is whether there is any evidence which supports the WCJ's factual finding.
It is solely for the WCJ, as the factfinder, to assess credibility and to resolve conflicts in the evidence.
In addition, it is solely for the WCJ, as the factfinder, to determine what weight to give to any evidence.
As such, the WCJ may reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part, even if that testimony is uncontradicted. Id.