CASE NO. 36-CRD-7-80Workers’ Compensation Commission
NOVEMBER 4, 1981
The appellant-claimant was represented by Joseph Tauber, Esq.
The appellee-respondents were represented by James L. Pomeranz, Esq.
This Petition for Review from the September 3, 1980 Decision of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was argued April 24, 1981 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of Commissioners John Arcudi, Robin Waller and Rhoda Loeb.
John Arcudi, Chairman, Robin Waller, Commissioner, Rhoda Loeb, Commissioner
FINDING AND AWARD
1-4. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of the Seventh District Commissioner’s Finding and Award of September 3, 1980 are affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this Compensation Review Division.
The ORDER of the Commissioner below dismissing the claim is affirmed.
OPINION
The Appellant has made a Motion to Correct Finding and Award and filed Reasons For Appeal alleging error in the Commissioner’s failure to grant the Motion to Correct. In neither instance did the appellant append to his pleas the pertinent sections of the transcript on which he relied. Nor has appellant caused a transcript to be filed with this panel. Absent a transcript of the evidence, we cannot intelligently question the factual determinations made by the Commissioner, the sole judge of the fact.
It appears from the Commissioner’s Finding that the claimant testified he received an injury to his back arising out of and in the course of his employment October 15 or 16, 1979. From the brief of the employer respondent we glean the information that a Jeffrey Ward and a Mr. Karamanis testified on the employer’s behalf in an attempt to rebut claimant’s testimony. The Commissioner below heard all these witnesses and determined that the claimant’s version of the facts as presented through his own testimony and that of a Mr. Serrano was not sufficiently credible to sustain the burden of proof on the claimant to establish a compensable injury occurring October 15 or 16, 1979. Put in another way, the Commissioner did not believe the claimant. Since he is the sole judge of the fact, we really need go no further to sustain the Commissioner’s Finding and Award.
However, a comment on the claimant-appellant’s Motion to Correct would seem to be in order. As stated earlier, appellant failed to comply with Administrative Regulation 31-301-4 by omitting to file any portion of the evidence he considered relevant to the corrections sought. But in addition, the appellant is asking for corrections to which he is not entitled. The Commissioner is under no absolute obligation to identify which witnesses were believed and which were not. Especially is this true when it is clear from the Finding that the claimant’s own testimony was disbelieved at least in part.
The Commissioner’s dismissal of the claim is affirmed.