CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award requiring payment of applicant's travel expenses to California for surgery. The defendant argued that California was an unreasonable geographic area for treatment and that the applicant failed to prove adequate treatment was unavailable in Connecticut. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant's legal argument flawed and affirming that the defendant bears the burden of proving the availability of equally effective treatment closer to the applicant's domicile.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award requiring payment of applicant's travel expenses to California for surgery. The defendant argued that California was an unreasonable geographic area for treatment and that the applicant failed to prove adequate treatment was unavailable in Connecticut. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant's legal argument flawed and affirming that the defendant bears the burden of proving the availability of equally effective treatment closer to the applicant's domicile.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.