Chris Arsenault, vs. Carpet Master; Mid-Century Insurance Company,

(STK 0209059) is a case in which Chris Arsenault, an employee of Carpet Master, sought workers' compensation for a back injury sustained in 2004. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the Findings, Award and Order issued by the administrative law judge. The Board found that the applicant was credible and that the vocational expert's analysis properly addressed the requirements of the Dahl decision. The Board also denied the defendant's request to admit a psychiatric report as newly discovered evidence, as it was not obtained prior to the close of discovery.

Carpet Master; Mid-Century Insurance Company, Chris Arsenault, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACHRIS ARSENAULT,Applicant,vs.CARPET MASTER; MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY,Defendants.Case No. ADJ2649808 (STK 0209059)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, Carpet Master, by and through its insurer, Mid-Century Insurance Company, seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order, issued February 22, 2017, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant, Chris Arsenault, sustained 100% permanent disability as a result of an admitted June 10, 2004 industrial injury to his back while employed as a carpet technician and cleaner by Carpet Master.            Defendant contends the WCJ’s finding of total permanent disability is “based solely on flawed and deficient vocational reporting and with no substantial medical evidence.” Defendant asserts that the reports of Mr. Malmuth, applicant’s vocational evaluator, whom the WCJ found credible, “cannot be deemed substantial evidence by any legal standard.” The arguments defendant raises against the vocational evidence include that the opinion of the vocational expert is based upon subjective evidence of impairment, that he cites applicant’s depression despite any claim of injury to his psyche being barred, that he did not take into consideration applicant’s computer skills and vocational testing, that he failed to consider applicant’s poker avocation and the skills involved, that he failed to perform a comprehensive evaluation because his assistant used online video conferencing for interviews and testing, and that he failed to address specific job titles of occupations that meet applicant’s physical limitations. Defendant further argues that the vocational expert’s opinion does not adequately address applicant’s amenability to vocational rehabilitation, as required under LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d , 234 [4

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.