Norman Martell vs. Dalton Trucking, Inc.; Redwood Fire And Casualty Insurance Company

In this case, Norman Martell, a truck driver, sought workers' compensation benefits for an alleged industrial injury to his back, psyche, and in the forms of cauda equina syndrome and loss of urinary function. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that Martell had not met his burden of proof to establish a reasonable probability of industrial causation. The Board noted that Martell had been given multiple opportunities to develop evidence of industrial causation, but had failed to do so in a timely manner.

Dalton Trucking, Inc.; Redwood Fire And Casualty Insurance Company Norman Martell WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIANORMAN MARTELL, Applicant,vs.DALTON TRUCKING, INC.; REDWOOD FIRE ANDCASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3695362 (LBO 0397415)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Order of March 19, 2013, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury while employed as a truck driver on December 5, 2007. Applicant had alleged industrial injury to his back, psyche, and in the forms of cauda equina syndrome and loss of urinary function.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that the applicant had not sustained his burden of proving industrial injury. We have received an Answer, and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report).            For the reasons stated by the WCJ in her Report, which we hereby adopt and incorporate, we will deny the applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration.            Although we adopt the WCJ’s Report in toto, we write separately to reemphasize the points made by theWCJ.            Regardless of whether panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) orthopedist J. Yogaratnam, M.D.’s opinion that applicant did not sustain industrial injury constituted substantial medical evidence, Labor Code section 5705 makes clear that the “burden of proof rests upon the party … holding the affirmative of the issue.” Section 3202.5 states that “All parties … shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence in order that all parties are equal before the law. ‘Preponderance of the evidence’ means that evidence … when weighed with that opposed to it, , has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth.” It is thus axiomatic that “The applicant for workers’

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.