CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and returned the case for further proceedings. Applicant contested a 93% permanent disability award, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) should have directed impairments to be added rather than combined, which would result in 100% disability. The Board found the trial judge erred in rejecting the AME's opinion solely due to the potential for a rating exceeding 100%, which is legally permissible. The matter was remanded for the AME to clarify their reasoning for the additive rating method.
Joel De La Cerda vs. Martin Selko & Co., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND is a workers' compensation case decided in . This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in .
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and returned the case for further proceedings. Applicant contested a 93% permanent disability award, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) should have directed impairments to be added rather than combined, which would result in 100% disability. The Board found the trial judge erred in rejecting the AME's opinion solely due to the potential for a rating exceeding 100%, which is legally permissible. The matter was remanded for the AME to clarify their reasoning for the additive rating method.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.