CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded prior findings and returned the case for further development of the record. The Board found that while Dr. Swartz's report was admissible, it did not constitute substantial evidence as it did not adequately address causation for the claimed cumulative injury. Furthermore, the Board determined that Dr. Brourman's opinion was not substantial evidence because it relied on an inaccurate understanding of the applicant's work duties, contradicting credible applicant testimony. The case is being remanded to allow parties to provide Dr. Brourman with a corrected job description and obtain a supplemental report on the cumulative injury claim.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded prior findings and returned the case for further development of the record. The Board found that while Dr. Swartz's report was admissible, it did not constitute substantial evidence as it did not adequately address causation for the claimed cumulative injury. Furthermore, the Board determined that Dr. Brourman's opinion was not substantial evidence because it relied on an inaccurate understanding of the applicant's work duties, contradicting credible applicant testimony. The case is being remanded to allow parties to provide Dr. Brourman with a corrected job description and obtain a supplemental report on the cumulative injury claim.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.