CompFox AI Summary
This case involves an applicant who suffered heat stroke while working in extreme temperatures. The defendant contested the finding of industrial injury, arguing medical evidence pointed to a non-industrial cause. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant's heat stroke was causally related to his employment. This ruling emphasizes the liberal construction of workers' compensation laws in favor of applicants.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involves an applicant who suffered heat stroke while working in extreme temperatures. The defendant contested the finding of industrial injury, arguing medical evidence pointed to a non-industrial cause. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant's heat stroke was causally related to his employment. This ruling emphasizes the liberal construction of workers' compensation laws in favor of applicants.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.