CompFox AI Summary
The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior order denying benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Fund (SIF). The Administrative Law Judge found the applicant did not establish a permanent disability of 35% or more from a subsequent injury alone, a requirement for SIF benefits under Labor Code § 4751. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, holding that the applicant's two industrial injuries to the same body parts could not be combined to meet the 35% threshold, citing the binding en banc decision in Hernandez. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for SIF benefits.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior order denying benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Fund (SIF). The Administrative Law Judge found the applicant did not establish a permanent disability of 35% or more from a subsequent injury alone, a requirement for SIF benefits under Labor Code § 4751. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, holding that the applicant's two industrial injuries to the same body parts could not be combined to meet the 35% threshold, citing the binding en banc decision in Hernandez. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for SIF 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.