CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding an applicant sustained industrial injuries while employed as a laborer. CIGA argued the claim was not a "covered claim" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9) due to alleged "other insurance" availability, but the Board found no substantial evidence that special employers' insurers provided coverage to the applicant. The Board also found no evidence of subsequent injury to the same body parts under a solvent insurer, thus affirming the applicant's entitlement to benefits.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding an applicant sustained industrial injuries while employed as a laborer. CIGA argued the claim was not a "covered claim" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9) due to alleged "other insurance" availability, but the Board found no substantial evidence that special employers' insurers provided coverage to the applicant. The Board also found no evidence of subsequent injury to the same body parts under a solvent insurer, thus affirming the applicant's entitlement to benefits.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.