News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

ELVIRA VASQUEZ vs. DEL MONTE FOODS; ZURICH INSURANCE

DEL MONTE FOODS; ZURICH INSURANCE ELVIRA VASQUEZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAELVIRA VASQUEZ, Applicant,vs.DEL MONTE FOODS; ZURICH INSURANCE, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7087449(Stockton District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 23, 2012 Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, wherein the Appeals Board rescinded the May 23, 2012 decision of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), and found that applicant sustained an industrial injury on June 22, 2009, and that defendant did not meet its burden of proof to establish, pursuant to Labor Code section 3600(a)(4), that applicant’s intoxication was a proximate cause of her injury.            Defendant contends that the Appeals Board erred in finding that it did not meet its burden of proof under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4), arguing that “uncontroverted evidence” establishes that applicant was on amphetamines “and such intoxication impaired her function, judgment and cognition.” (Petition for Reconsideration, p. 3.) Defendant also argues that applicant’s intoxication was a substantial factor in the injury.            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have received an Answer from applicant. For the reasons discussed both below and in our decision of August 23, 2012, which we adopt and incorporate by reference, we will deny defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration.            We note that the cases cited by defendant on page 3, lines 21-26 of its petition are referenced in a misleading fashion. Setting aside the potential inaccuracies in the drug test, the drug test by itself is , insufficient to establish that applicant was intoxicated or that, if applicant was intoxicated, her intoxication caused her injury. In Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brinkley) (1999), 6

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Get exclusive access to in-debt interviews.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *