News and Insights

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

Michael Brooks, vs. County Of Sacramento, Permissibly Self-insured,

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Permissibly Self-Insured, MICHAEL BROOKS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMICHAEL BROOKS, Applicant,vs.COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ1898181 (SAC 0367383)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 4, 2009 Findings and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a probation officer during the period through December 14, 2007, sustained industrial psychiatric injury causing 15% permanent disability and need for further medical treatment.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant sustained industrial psychiatric injury. Defendant argues that the WCJ’s decision is not supported by substantial medical evidence, that applicant’s claim is a result of lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions, that applicant is not a credible witness, and that defendant has newly discovered evidence in the form of a supplemental medical report dated August 3, 2009 from agreed medical examiner (AME) Ann Allen, M.D., which supports a finding of no industrial injury.            Applicant filed an Answer and the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration.            Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ’s decision, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ. , RELEVANT FACTS            Applicant claims industrial psychiatric injury as a result of cumulative trauma through December 14, 2007 while employed as a supervising probation officer at a juvenile correction facility. Defendant denied liability asserting that applicant’s claim was barred by Labor Code’ section 3208.3 (lawful, non


Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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