Click here for printable version
APPELLATE COURT REVIEWS A WORKERS'
COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD RULING FINDING
NO INJURY WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD RULING FINDING
NO INJURY WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
This is a non
published Appellate
Court decision that
restates previous law,
published Appellate
Court decision that
restates previous law,
T
his is a very significant
case for reestablishing
existing workers'
compensation principles.
case for reestablishing
existing workers'
compensation principles.
The applicant had an
admitted injury to his left foot.
There was conflicting
evidence as to injury to his
left great toe. The applicant
continued working. He then
sought medical treatment for
admitted injury to his left foot.
There was conflicting
evidence as to injury to his
left great toe. The applicant
continued working. He then
sought medical treatment for
swelling in the toe and it was
determined that he had
uncontrolled diabetes. The
applicant developed infections
which led to several surgical
amputations.
determined that he had
uncontrolled diabetes. The
applicant developed infections
which led to several surgical
amputations.
The applicant contended
the diabetes was "lit up" by
the industrial injury and
therefore compensable. Atrial
was held on the issue. The
Workers' Compensation Judge
(WCJ) determined the foot
injury "lit up" the diabetic
condition.
the diabetes was "lit up" by
the industrial injury and
therefore compensable. Atrial
was held on the issue. The
Workers' Compensation Judge
(WCJ) determined the foot
injury "lit up" the diabetic
condition.
The employer filed a
petition for reconsideration
and the Workers'
Compensation Appeals Board
(WCAB) reversed the WCJ
finding the medical evidence
compelled and found the
petition for reconsideration
and the Workers'
Compensation Appeals Board
(WCAB) reversed the WCJ
finding the medical evidence
compelled and found the
injury was preexisting and
therefore not compensable.
therefore not compensable.
The appellate court
reviewed the medicals and
found they did not constitute
substantial evidence. They
indicated the standard is
whether the medical evidence
indicates within a reasonable
medical probability the
normal progression of the
nonindustrial disease would
have resulted in disability
irrespective of the industrial
injury.
reviewed the medicals and
found they did not constitute
substantial evidence. They
indicated the standard is
whether the medical evidence
indicates within a reasonable
medical probability the
normal progression of the
nonindustrial disease would
have resulted in disability
irrespective of the industrial
injury.
GRIMALDO VS. WCAB