CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged a finding that the applicant truck driver was at work on the date of his claimed injury, arguing the judge's reasoning was flawed. However, the Board found the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof, particularly by not producing definitive payroll or clock-in records to disprove the applicant's testimony. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that it was improbable an employee would fabricate an injury on a non-work day, especially when the employer possessed superior documentation control and failed to produce it.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged a finding that the applicant truck driver was at work on the date of his claimed injury, arguing the judge's reasoning was flawed. However, the Board found the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof, particularly by not producing definitive payroll or clock-in records to disprove the applicant's testimony. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that it was improbable an employee would fabricate an injury on a non-work day, especially when the employer possessed superior documentation control and failed to produce it.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.