Clark Roofingibarrett Business Services, Permissibly Self-Insured Leonardo Carrillo WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALEONARDO CARRILLO, Applicant,vs.CLARK ROOFINGIBARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendants.Case No. AHM 141269OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Both applicant and defendant challenged the decision of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) that issued on March 16, 2007. In that decision, the WCJ found, inter alia, that applicant sustained industrial injury while employed by Clark Roofing on July 8, 2006, to his bilateral upper and lower extremities, back and psyche, resulting in temporary total disability from July 8, 2006 to the present and continuing and that there is a need for further medical treatment. The WCJ also found that defendant had not acted in bad faith in denying applicant’s claim and that defendant had a genuine doubt from a legal standpoint as to its liability. The WCJ also denied the affirmative defense of intoxication for reasons given in his opinion on decision. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in failing to sanction defendant for its bad faith conduct (Labor Code section 5813) for denying his claim pursuant to and in failing to impose penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 5814. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding psyche injury, and in failing to find that applicant’s intoxication was the proximate cause of his injuries. We granted reconsideration for the sole purpose of obtaining from the WCJ a report and recommendation on defendant’s petition for reconsideration pursuant to WCAB Rule 10860, since , the WCI had only submitted a report on applicant’s petition. We have received that report. We have considered the allegations of the separate petitions for reconsideration filed by applicant and defendant, and the contents of the reports and recommendations of the WCI regarding each, dated April 2, 2007
