CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award for industrial injury to the applicant's low back and cervical spine. The defendant argued the applicant was not temporarily disabled as they offered a modified position consistent with AME Dr. Sew Hoy's restrictions, and that sub rosa videos should have been admitted. The Board denied reconsideration, finding Dr. Sew Hoy's report was qualified and did not preclude temporary disability, especially when contrasted with the applicant's treating physician's consistent findings. The Board also upheld the exclusion of the sub rosa videos due to late disclosure, as required by Labor Code section 5502(d)(3).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award for industrial injury to the applicant's low back and cervical spine. The defendant argued the applicant was not temporarily disabled as they offered a modified position consistent with AME Dr. Sew Hoy's restrictions, and that sub rosa videos should have been admitted. The Board denied reconsideration, finding Dr. Sew Hoy's report was qualified and did not preclude temporary disability, especially when contrasted with the applicant's treating physician's consistent findings. The Board also upheld the exclusion of the sub rosa videos due to late disclosure, as required by Labor Code section 5502(d)(3).
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.