DIONE HERNANDEZ vs. ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By AVIZENT ANAHEIM

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the August 30, 2012 Findings of Fact, which found that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of the employment to her back and right lower extremity on January 3, 2011. The Board found that the WCJ's findings were supported by solid, credible evidence and were to be accorded great weight by the Appeals Board. The Board also noted that the employee bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her injury was sustained in the course of employment. The Board found that the medical records and testimony of the applicant's supervisor corroborated the injury on January 3,

ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By AVIZENT ANAHEIM DIONE HERNANDEZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADIONE HERNANDEZ, Applicant,vs.ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR; Permissibly Self-Insured,Administered By AVIZENT ANAHEIM, Defendant.Case No. ADJ7849947(Long Beach District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 30, 2012, wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of the employment (AOE/COE) to her back and right lower extremity on January 3,2011.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE, arguing that the WCJ erroneously recited the medical evidence and failed to specify in detail the reasons for the decision. Defendant also argues that the WCJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because he has isolated evidence that supports a finding of industrial injury and ignored relevant material facts that would lead to the opposite conclusion. No Answer was received.            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, and the contents of the Report and Recommendation of Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) of the WCJ with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth below, we will deny reconsideration.            It is well established that the decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code § 5903; LeVesque v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d. 627, 635-637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) When the WCJ’s findings are supported by solid, , credible evidence, they are to be accorded great weight by the Appeals Board and rejected only on the basis of contrary evidence of considerable substantia

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.