CompFox AI Summary
This case involves a dispute over an applicant's entitlement to an interpreter for medical treatment appointments following a back injury. The defendant challenged the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order for an interpreter, arguing it was not required by statute. The applicant also sought reconsideration, claiming a specific medical report was improperly admitted. The Appeals Board denied both petitions, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and finding no error in the admission of the report or the interpreter order.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involves a dispute over an applicant's entitlement to an interpreter for medical treatment appointments following a back injury. The defendant challenged the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order for an interpreter, arguing it was not required by statute. The applicant also sought reconsideration, claiming a specific medical report was improperly admitted. The Appeals Board denied both petitions, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and finding no error in the admission of the report or the interpreter order.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.