CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the finding that he did not sustain new and further psychological disability. The Board found that substantial evidence, including expert opinions from Drs. Mendel and Panzarella, did not support a finding of compensable psychiatric injury, noting significant exaggeration of symptoms by the applicant. Furthermore, the Board concluded that any psychological issues predated the original stipulated award and thus did not constitute "new and further" disability.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the finding that he did not sustain new and further psychological disability. The Board found that substantial evidence, including expert opinions from Drs. Mendel and Panzarella, did not support a finding of compensable psychiatric injury, noting significant exaggeration of symptoms by the applicant. Furthermore, the Board concluded that any psychological issues predated the original stipulated award and thus did not constitute "new and further" disability.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.