CompFox AI Summary
In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Basil Perkins, sought reconsideration after his claim for an industrial injury was denied. Perkins argued he was denied due process and that his injury was compensable under several doctrines, including positional and special risk, while also asserting employment motivation for the assault. The Appeals Board admitted a security bulletin provided by the applicant but found it irrelevant as it described tactics dissimilar to the applicant's shooting and was issued over two years after the injury. Ultimately, the Board affirmed its prior decision denying the applicant's claim.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Basil Perkins, sought reconsideration after his claim for an industrial injury was denied. Perkins argued he was denied due process and that his injury was compensable under several doctrines, including positional and special risk, while also asserting employment motivation for the assault. The Appeals Board admitted a security bulletin provided by the applicant but found it irrelevant as it described tactics dissimilar to the applicant's shooting and was issued over two years after the injury. Ultimately, the Board affirmed its prior decision denying the applicant's 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.