CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns a workers' compensation appeal where the defendant sought reconsideration of an award of 100% permanent disability. The defendant argued the vocational expert's report was unsubstantial, that they shouldn't be liable for disability increases from medical treatment, and that the applicant wasn't permanent and stationary. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the original award based on vocational evidence demonstrating the applicant's inability to engage in gainful employment due to her injury and its consequences. The Board further held that aggravation of an industrial injury from medical treatment is a foreseeable consequence and compensable within the workers' compensation system.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns a workers' compensation appeal where the defendant sought reconsideration of an award of 100% permanent disability. The defendant argued the vocational expert's report was unsubstantial, that they shouldn't be liable for disability increases from medical treatment, and that the applicant wasn't permanent and stationary. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the original award based on vocational evidence demonstrating the applicant's inability to engage in gainful employment due to her injury and its consequences. The Board further held that aggravation of an industrial injury from medical treatment is a foreseeable consequence and compensable within the workers' compensation system.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.