Reyes v. Hart Plastering, 010101 CAWC, POM 261149

Case DateJanuary 01, 2001
CourtCalifornia
JOSE REYES, Applicant,
v.
HART PLASTERING; FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (Servicing Facility), Defendants).
No. POM 261149
California Workers Compensation Decisions
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board State Of California
January 1, 2001
         OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION          On December 3, 2004, we granted applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 16, 2004. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to various parts of his body when, while employed as a plasterer on May 22, 2000, he fell from a scaffold following a non-industrial seizure. In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that, based on the opinions of Robert Kounang, M.D., and Ronald Kent, M.D., applicant's fall was "caused by pre-existing seizure activity."          Applicant contends, in substance, that the finding of industrial injury was erroneous and unjustified, asserting under the principles set forth in Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Ace. Com. {Gideon) (1953) 41 Cal.2d 676 [18 Cal.Comp.Cases 286] that, although an idiopathic seizure is not compensable, the injuries sustained from hitting the ground at work are compensable. Defendant filed an answer to the petition for reconsideration.          In his Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, the WCJ opined that Labor Code section 4663,[1], as amended by Senate Bill (SB) 899 (Stats. 2004, ch. 34, §34), "requires a physician to address the issue of apportionment of causation"; that applicant's injury was precipitated by his preexisting seizure disorder; and, therefore, that the petition should be denied because "the applicant's condition was caused by his pre-existing seizure condition."          For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the amendments to sections 4663 and 4664, which concern apportionment of permanent disability, have not affected the statutes governing the determination of whether an injury arises out of and occurs in the course of employment, i.e., sections...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT