CompFox AI Summary
The Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. This decision was based on the finding that the defendant's provided notice to the applicant regarding her workers' compensation rights was "grossly inadequate." The notice failed to inform the unrepresented applicant of key rights, such as the potential for permanent disability benefits, her ability to disagree with the carrier's decision, or the option of a medical evaluation. Consequently, the statute of limitations was tolled due to prejudice, as the applicant was not sufficiently informed of her entitlement to benefits.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. This decision was based on the finding that the defendant's provided notice to the applicant regarding her workers' compensation rights was "grossly inadequate." The notice failed to inform the unrepresented applicant of key rights, such as the potential for permanent disability benefits, her ability to disagree with the carrier's decision, or the option of a medical evaluation. Consequently, the statute of limitations was tolled due to prejudice, as the applicant was not sufficiently informed of her entitlement to benefits.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.