CompFox AI Summary
The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of permanent total disability benefits, claiming his rights were violated by reliance on an unavailable transcript and the creation of an "ex post facto" law. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that vocational expert testimony did not properly rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating. The Board clarified that it applied existing California law, specifically Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., which limits rebuttal evidence to factors directly attributable to the work-related injury, not general economic conditions. The case is returned to the trial level for rating permanent disability based solely on the medical record.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of permanent total disability benefits, claiming his rights were violated by reliance on an unavailable transcript and the creation of an "ex post facto" law. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that vocational expert testimony did not properly rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating. The Board clarified that it applied existing California law, specifically Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., which limits rebuttal evidence to factors directly attributable to the work-related injury, not general economic conditions. The case is returned to the trial level for rating permanent disability based solely on the medical record.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.