CompFox AI Summary
In this case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award requiring neurological and psychiatric consultations for the applicant. The defendant argued that a psychiatric consultation was barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) as the applicant had less than six months of employment. However, the Appeals Board found the record inadequate to determine if a psychiatric injury was actually claimed. Therefore, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter for further proceedings to establish a proper record.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
In this case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award requiring neurological and psychiatric consultations for the applicant. The defendant argued that a psychiatric consultation was barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) as the applicant had less than six months of employment. However, the Appeals Board found the record inadequate to determine if a psychiatric injury was actually claimed. Therefore, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter for further proceedings to establish a proper record.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.