Jeff Roush, vs. City Of Anaheim,

In this case, the City of Anaheim sought reconsideration of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) that found that Jeff Roush, a police officer, sustained industrial injury to his heart, back, and foot, and in the form of hypertension while employed by the City of Anaheim. The WCAB granted reconsideration and amended the decision to reflect the parties' stipulation that Roush sustained industrial injury to his heart and in the form of hypertension. The WCAB otherwise affirmed the decision.

CITY OF ANAHEIM, JEFF ROUSH, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJEFF ROUSH, Applicant,vs.CITY OF ANAHEIM, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ4118594 (AHM 0149487)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 1, 2009 Findings, Award and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his back and right foot and that applicant sustained industrial injury to his low back pursuant to Labor Code’ section 3213.2. The issues of permanent disability and apportionment were deferred. Previously, the parties stipulated that applicant sustained industrial injury to his heart and in the form of hypertension while employed as a police officer during the period from August 30, 2003 through August 30, 2004.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding industrial injury to applicant’s back and foot arguing that the record does not contain substantial medical evidence to support a finding of injury to those body parts. Defendant also contends that the WCJ erred in relying on the of section 3213.2 presumption to find that applicant sustained a low back injury.            Applicant filed an Answer, and the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Reconsideration recommending that we grant reconsideration to correct a clerical error with regard to the body parts injured and that we otherwise affirm his Decision./// 1All further statutory references are to the Labor Code, unless otherwise noted. ,             Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated by the WCJ in his Report, which we adopt and incorporate herein, we will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ’s Decision to a correct clerical error. We will otherwise affirm the WCJ’s Decision.            In his Report, the WCJ stated that:       “Finding[] of Fact Number 1 contains a clerical error because it fail

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.