CompFox AI Summary
Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer:
This case concerns a $100%$ permanent disability award for an applicant who sustained a severe head injury in 2005, followed by a subsequent lumbar injury in 2006. The defendant sought apportionment of the permanent disability award, arguing the lumbar injury contributed to the applicant's unemployability. However, the Appeals Board found the medical evidence regarding apportionment between the two injuries insufficient and remanded the case for further development of the record. A dissenting opinion argued that the evidence supported a $100%$ award without apportionment, as the primary disabilities were clearly linked to the initial head injury.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer:
This case concerns a $100%$ permanent disability award for an applicant who sustained a severe head injury in 2005, followed by a subsequent lumbar injury in 2006. The defendant sought apportionment of the permanent disability award, arguing the lumbar injury contributed to the applicant's unemployability. However, the Appeals Board found the medical evidence regarding apportionment between the two injuries insufficient and remanded the case for further development of the record. A dissenting opinion argued that the evidence supported a $100%$ award without apportionment, as the primary disabilities were clearly linked to the initial head injury.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.