made in awarding disability benefits on the basis that permitting such revision promotes the early payment of benefits by employers, and a failure to do so “will have a chilling effect upon awarding disability payments in the Commonwealth.” (Department’s Brief at 14.) However, we note the clear distinction between the present ease and Bama. In Bar-mi, the employer awarded workers’ compensation benefits prior to any investigation of the claimant’s claim. As a result, our Supreme Court permitted the employer to seek relief. However, in the present case, the Department awarded Claimant benefits after an investigation was conducted regarding his injury, and, per Beissel, the Department’s acceptance of liability after that investigation precluded it from litigating th Pa. 312, 105 A.2d 336 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 857, 75 S.Ct. 82, 99
holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination holding counsel cannot be ineffective based on errors that the appellate court determined on direct appeal were not errors plain or otherwise holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the commonwealth resulted from a mistaken view of the law by earlier courts holding that errors or mistaken belief regarding applicable law did not estop the commonwealth from collecting taxes legally due recognizing that a federal habeas court does not rule on errors in the application of state law especially rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence