Click here for printable version
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 worked in
the laundry facility for the
employer. The applicant was
exposed to fumes and
chemicals in the employment.
The applicant had no history
of breathing problems prior to
working for the employer.
the laundry facility for the
employer. The applicant was
exposed to fumes and
chemicals in the employment.
The applicant had no history
of breathing problems prior to
working for the employer.
Symptoms of respiratory
problems commenced during
employment and progressed to
wh e re th e applicant could no
longer work.
problems commenced during
employment and progressed to
wh e re th e applicant could no
longer work.
The applicant filed a claim
for a cumulative trauma and
the only physician reporting
found it industrial. The
physician indicated the
applicant was 100% disabled
but apportioned 60% to non
industrial causation.
for a cumulative trauma and
the only physician reporting
found it industrial. The
physician indicated the
applicant was 100% disabled
but apportioned 60% to non
industrial causation.
The Workers'
Compensation Judge (WCJ)
found the case 100%
industrial with no
apportionment. The WCJ
thought the apportionment
was speculative. The
Workers' Compensation
[Appeals Board (WCAB)
agreed with the WCJ.
Compensation Judge (WCJ)
found the case 100%
industrial with no
apportionment. The WCJ
thought the apportionment
was speculative. The
Workers' Compensation
[Appeals Board (WCAB)
agreed with the WCJ.
The appellate court
reviewed existing case law.
They reviewed "substantial
evidence" and determined the
WCAB did not use substantia
evidence. Here the physician
indicated there were two sets
of factors contributing to the
applicants current condition.
They were both industrial and
nonindustrial. This could not
be ignored. If the WCAB
questioned this they should
have developed the record
further under Labor Code
section 5701. Therefore, the
award was vacated.
reviewed existing case law.
They reviewed "substantial
evidence" and determined the
WCAB did not use substantia
evidence. Here the physician
indicated there were two sets
of factors contributing to the
applicants current condition.
They were both industrial and
nonindustrial. This could not
be ignored. If the WCAB
questioned this they should
have developed the record
further under Labor Code
section 5701. Therefore, the
award was vacated.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY VS.
WCAB (GOODIN)
WCAB (GOODIN)