CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found the applicant did not prove she suffered an industrial injury. The applicant's sole medical evidence from Dr. Flores was deemed unsubstantial because it lacked proper notification to the defendant and relied on an unidentified interpreter for the applicant's history and psychological testing. Furthermore, the applicant's failure to testify prevented the court from assessing her credibility, which is crucial for evaluating the history provided to the doctor. The applicant also failed to properly designate a primary treating physician and present evidence at trial.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found the applicant did not prove she suffered an industrial injury. The applicant's sole medical evidence from Dr. Flores was deemed unsubstantial because it lacked proper notification to the defendant and relied on an unidentified interpreter for the applicant's history and psychological testing. Furthermore, the applicant's failure to testify prevented the court from assessing her credibility, which is crucial for evaluating the history provided to the doctor. The applicant also failed to properly designate a primary treating physician and present evidence at trial.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.