CompFox AI Summary
Defendant Pacific Bell sought reconsideration of a decision awarding applicant cumulative injury benefits and denying the employer's claim for "excess credit." The defendant argued it was entitled to credit for payments made under a disability plan, citing relevant case law. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the trial judge that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. This failure was primarily due to not presenting the disability plan itself or evidence of its funding and the parties' intent at trial. The Board also noted that ERISA preemption was raised for the first time on reconsideration, without an evidentiary hearing.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Defendant Pacific Bell sought reconsideration of a decision awarding applicant cumulative injury benefits and denying the employer's claim for "excess credit." The defendant argued it was entitled to credit for payments made under a disability plan, citing relevant case law. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the trial judge that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. This failure was primarily due to not presenting the disability plan itself or evidence of its funding and the parties' intent at trial. The Board also noted that ERISA preemption was raised for the first time on reconsideration, without an evidentiary hearing.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.