AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• A registered nurse employed by Lovelace Rehab Hospital claimed workers' compensation benefits for disabilities he alleged were the result of working three consecutive days, contrary to his usual practice due to his history of back pain and previous work-related injuries. Despite attempting to trade shifts to avoid this, he was required to work from April 2 to April 4, 2011. He reported exacerbation of back pain and new pain radiating into his left leg after these shifts. Medical consultations followed, but his claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied on the basis that his injury could not be attributed to a specific work-related event (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that his claimed disabilities were a natural and direct result of work-related injuries incurred during the consecutive workdays from April 2 to April 4, 2011 (para 4).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Contended that the Worker's claim was not compensable because there was not a specific event to which his injury could be attributed, and thus, the claimed disabilities did not arise out of and in the course of employment (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker's claimed disabilities were a natural and direct result of work-related injuries sustained during the consecutive workdays from April 2 to April 4, 2011.

Disposition

• The Workers’ Compensation Judge's decision that the Worker's claim was not compensable was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Judge, with Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge concurring, provided the opinion. The court reviewed the Workers’ Compensation Act requirements, emphasizing that an injury must arise out of and in the course of employment to be compensable. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Workers’ Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision that the Worker failed to establish a causal connection between his claimed disabilities and a work-related accident. Testimonies from medical professionals treating the Worker did not conclusively link the Worker's increased pain and disabilities to the work-related activities between April 2 and April 4, 2011. The court noted inconsistencies in the Worker's reporting of the injury and the medical evidence did not support a recent injury attributable to those specific workdays. The court declined to re-weigh the medical testimony, deferring to the WCJ's findings and conclusions based on the evidence presented (paras 5-23).