CompFox AI Summary
This case involved an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for back and extremity injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the applicant did not meet his burden of proof for industrial injury. The applicant's argument that Dr. Pratley's reports should have been admitted was rejected. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the employer's testimony regarding the applicant's credibility and timely reporting of the injury was permissible. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination between the applicant and his employer.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involved an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for back and extremity injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the applicant did not meet his burden of proof for industrial injury. The applicant's argument that Dr. Pratley's reports should have been admitted was rejected. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the employer's testimony regarding the applicant's credibility and timely reporting of the injury was permissible. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination between the applicant and his employer.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.