CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge, particularly regarding the applicant's credibility. Sub-rosa surveillance films and medical evaluations by QMEs demonstrated that the applicant made multiple false statements about his disability and complaints, leading to a plea of no contest to workers' compensation fraud. The applicant's award of future medical treatment for his heel was based on a finding of bruising, not the extent of disability he claimed.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge, particularly regarding the applicant's credibility. Sub-rosa surveillance films and medical evaluations by QMEs demonstrated that the applicant made multiple false statements about his disability and complaints, leading to a plea of no contest to workers' compensation fraud. The applicant's award of future medical treatment for his heel was based on a finding of bruising, not the extent of disability he claimed.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.