CompFox AI Summary
Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that his vehicle accident was not a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition, which would have allowed compensation for psychiatric injury despite less than six months of employment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's testimony regarding the alleged steering wheel lock was contradictory and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant failed to prove the incident was uncommon or unexpected beyond personal experience. Consequently, the original order was amended to explicitly state the injury did not fall under the sudden and extraordinary exception.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that his vehicle accident was not a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition, which would have allowed compensation for psychiatric injury despite less than six months of employment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's testimony regarding the alleged steering wheel lock was contradictory and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant failed to prove the incident was uncommon or unexpected beyond personal experience. Consequently, the original order was amended to explicitly state the injury did not fall under the sudden and extraordinary exception.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.