C.L. Knox dba Advanced Industrial Services; State Compensation Insurance Fund Ruth Meeks , Defendant further argues that “considerable weight should not be given to the applicant’s testimony, but instead to other direct evidence in the record.” (Petition, page 8 lines 1, 2). In the Report addressing defendant’s petition, the WCJ set forth the bases for the decision and noted, beginning at page 3: “The dispute upon which the AOE/COE issue was decided centered around the determination of whether Applicant was travelling to her home after leaving work early … or whether she was headed to get food and return to the job site …. The Finding was that Applicant was traveling to get food and return, just as the co-worker was doing at the time of the accident…. Applicant had testified she told [Diaz] she was getting food and would return. Mr. Diaz’ testimony was not as consistent with this understanding of the intentions of Applicant as his actions were, and his actions were found to be more persuasive….. The finding of industrial injury was based on the actions, testimony and deposition of Mr. Diaz as well as the testimony of Applicant. While some of Applicant’s testimony was found to be erroneous, that is different from being unreliable. It was found that Applicant’s memory of events immediately surrounding the accident had been affected by the accident. This is documented in the depositions of other witnesses who discussed the accident with Applicant at the hospital shortly after it occurred. There was no such testimony showing problems with Applicant’s memory of events more distant in time from the accident. The finding that Applicant’s memory of events close in time to the accident was erroneous does not mandate a finding that all her memories were erroneous, nor make her testimony unreliable.” Applicant filed an Answer to both petitions. We have considered the two petitions for reconsideration and the WCJ’s two Reports regardin
