CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his heart, psyche, or internal organs. The Board found the applicant's medical expert's opinion to be unsubstantial as it was based on an incomplete and inaccurate medical history provided by the applicant. Conversely, the Board found the defendant's QME's well-reasoned and thorough medical opinions, which considered extensive non-industrial risk factors, constituted substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof for an industrial injury.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his heart, psyche, or internal organs. The Board found the applicant's medical expert's opinion to be unsubstantial as it was based on an incomplete and inaccurate medical history provided by the applicant. Conversely, the Board found the defendant's QME's well-reasoned and thorough medical opinions, which considered extensive non-industrial risk factors, constituted substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof for an industrial 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.