the specific issue of his neck or cervical spine injury during the earlier proceedings on his [first review petition], the record evidence clearly establishes that he should have done so.” Id. at 955. 6 . This Court specifically explained in Weney that: The purpose behind the Act "is to provide quick and certain benefits to employees of the Commonwealth who suffer from work-related injuries.” Ramich v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Schatz Elec., Inc.), 564 Pa. 656, 665, 770 A.2d 318, 323 (2001) (emphasis added). We believe that application of the doctrine of technical res judicata here will help to ensure that benefits are provided to injured workers in a "quick and certain” manner. See McCarthy v. Township of McCandless, [7 Pa.Cmwlth. 611,] 300 A.2d 815, 819 (Pa.Cmwlth.1973) (<HOLDING>). Application of the doctrine of technical res
holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award recognizing exception to application of res judicata and collateral estoppel principles to decisions of administrative proceedings where there has been manifest error in the record recognizing that the doctrines of technical res judicata and collateral estoppel serve as important means of promoting certainty and efficiency holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes holding that collateral estoppel and res judicata apply to quasijudicial agency decisions