John Aresco vs. Marine World Africa Usa Tig Specialty Insurance Company Administered By Tristar Risk Management

.opn In this case, John Aresco, an employee of Marine World Africa USA, sought reconsideration of an Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Appeals Board on February 27, 2014. The decision found that Aresco sustained industrial injury to his internal system in the nature of Guillian-Barre syndrome, but that his claim of injury to the psyche was barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Petition for Reconsideration was denied because the record was unclear how applicant was injured at work, and none of the possible causes could be considered an "extraordinary" employment condition within the meaning of section 3208.3(d).

MARINE WORLD AFRICA USA TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT JOHN ARESCO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOHN ARESCO, Applicant,vs.MARINE WORLD AFRICA USA; TIG    SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,administered by TRISTAR RISKMANAGEMENT, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3396302 (WCK 0043860)(Oakland District Office)OPINION AND ORDERDENYING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION            Applicant, John Aresco, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued by the Appeals Board on February 27, 2014. In that decision, we found that Applicant, while employed by Marine World Africa USA on July 18, 1998, as a janitor/maintenance worker, sustained industrial injury to his internal system in the nature of Guillian-Barre syndrome, but that his claim of injury to the psyche is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Our determination that the claim of injury to the psyche is barred caused us to reduce his level of permanent disability from 47% down to 13%. In our decision, we noted that the record was unclear how applicant was injured at work, and concluded regardless of whether the injury was caused by eating tainted food, picking up trash, or eating a berry given to him by a co-worker, none of these can be considered an “extraordinary” employment condition within the meaning of section 3208.3(d). Because of this determination, we indicated that we need not reach a determination on whether the injury was also “sudden.”            By the Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Permission to File Exhibit and to Take Judicial Notice (Petition), applicant asserts that his claim of injury was not barred by section 3208.3(d) because, although he was employed less than six months at the time of the injury, the claim of psychiatric 1 All further statutory references are to the Labor Code, , injury resulted from a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. Applicant also contends that the award of 47% permanent

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.