Home/Case Law/Sudha Rajender vs. TOBIN LUCKS, MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA
Regular DecisionReconsideration

Sudha Rajender vs. TOBIN LUCKS, MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA

Filed: Oct 01, 2009
San Francisco
ADJ663546

CompFox AI Summary

The WCJ found insufficient evidence of significant stress to support a conclusion that work stress contributed to applicant's coronary heart disease. The Board affirmed the WCJ's determination and denied the petition for reconsideration.

Sudha Rajender vs. TOBIN LUCKS, MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA is a workers' compensation case decided in San Francisco. 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 San Francisco.

Full Decision Text1 Pages

The WCJ found insufficient evidence of significant stress to support a conclusion that work stress contributed to applicant's coronary heart disease. The Board affirmed the WCJ's determination and denied the petition for reconsideration.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

Sudha Rajender vs. TOBIN LUCKS, MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA workers compensation case in San Francisco. Legal case summary, ruling, and analysis for attorneys and legal research.

Sudha Rajender vs. TOBIN LUCKS, MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA case law summary from San Francisco. Workers compensation legal decision, case analysis, and court ruling details.

Sudha Rajender vs. TOBIN LUCKS, MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA Case Analysis

Sudha Rajender vs. TOBIN LUCKS, MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA is a legal case related to workers' compensation in San Francisco. This case explains important rulings, legal interpretations, and claim decisions.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.