 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Randhawa v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board10/30/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
THE COURT
Matinder Randhawa (Randhawa) petitions for a writ of review to determine the lawfulness of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying her claim for compensation benefits. (Lab. Code, § 5950; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 57.) We will deny the petition.
BACKGROUND
Randhawa worked as a nursing assistant for respondent Emanuel Medical Center (Emanuel) when she injured the mid thoracic area of her back while lifting a patient in April 1997. Emanuel admitted the injury as industrially related, but the issues of permanent disability, further medical treatment, self-procured treatment, costs, and sanctions and penalties proceeded to hearing on January 30, 2003.
In April 2003, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found Randhawa was not a credible witness at the hearing and that she gave "a willfully false and inaccurate history to every doctor who has examined her." Because she mislead the physicians, the WCJ concluded Randhawa failed to meet her burden of proving the industrial injury caused permanent disability or the need for continuing medical treatment. The WCJ further noted that "if any sanctions apply they should be applied against [Randhawa's] attorney for his behavior in not only filing meritless petitions, but for deposing [a physician] and proceeding simply on a fishing expedition."
Randhawa petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration claiming in part that the evidence failed to support the WCJ's decision. On June 13, 2003, the WCAB denied Randhawa's petition and adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation as its own reasoning.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing an order, decision, or award of the WCAB, an appellate court must determine whether, in view of the entire record, substantial evidence supports the WCAB's findings. (§ 5952; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317.) An appellate court may not reweigh the evidence or decide disputed questions of fact by substituting its choice of the most convincing evidence for that of the WCAB. (§ 5953; Western Growers Ins. Co. v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 227, 233.) "The credibility of witnesses, the persuasiveness or weight of the evidence, and the resolving of conflicting inferences, are questions of fact." (Western Electric Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 629, 644.) Although we will not disturb an award merely because it is susceptible of opposing inferences, we nevertheless will not accept factual findings if they are illogical, unreasonable, improbable, or inequitable considering the entire record and overall statutory scheme. (Judson Steel Corp. v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 664; Western Growers Ins. Co., supra, at p. 233.)
Notwithstanding the statutory requirement to construe workers' compensation laws liberally in favor of extending disability benefits, an employee seeking benefits carries the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that an injury or disease arose out of the course of employment. (§§ 3202, 3202.5, 3208; Livitsanos v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 744, 753.) To constitute an industrial injury, workplace events must have caused a temporary or permanent disability, death, or the need for medical treatment beyond first aid. (§§ 3208.1, 3208.2, 5401, subd. (a).)
Page 1 2 3 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|