CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns the admissibility of store surveillance video footage from the applicant's date of injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board agreed with the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a future decision proves adverse. The WCJ determined the video was relevant to the nature, extent, and apportionment of the applicant's injury, noting it shows the applicant using a cane and stocking shelves before being removed on a stretcher. The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate that removal was necessary before a final decision.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns the admissibility of store surveillance video footage from the applicant's date of injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board agreed with the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a future decision proves adverse. The WCJ determined the video was relevant to the nature, extent, and apportionment of the applicant's injury, noting it shows the applicant using a cane and stocking shelves before being removed on a stretcher. The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate that removal was necessary before a final decision.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.