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

• The Worker, while employed by the Employer, sustained injuries from a fall off a scaffold on October 4, 2011. The Worker filed for workers' compensation benefits, leading to disputes over the nature, extent, and causation of the alleged injuries. The parties agreed to have the case adjudicated based on previously admitted evidence and evidence presented through an addendum to the pre-trial order (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the right shoulder was not the sole compensable injury and that there were other compensable injuries. Contended that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) failed to apply the correct legal standards in determining whether to award medical benefits and permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits (para 3).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: The summary does not explicitly detail the Employer/Insurer-Appellees' submissions. However, it can be inferred that they contested the extent of the Worker's injuries and the causation related to the work accident (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was substantial evidence to support the WCJ’s finding that the right shoulder was the sole compensable injury.
• Whether the WCJ misapplied the law in not granting Worker medical benefits after February 2, 2012, and PPD benefits for the right shoulder (paras 7, 30, 35).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the WCJ’s order granting Worker temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for his right shoulder injury from October 4, 2011, to February 2, 2012, but denying benefits for any other alleged injury and any permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per M. Monica Zamora, J., with Julie J. Vargas, J., and Jacqueline R. Medina, J., concurring, found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's determination that the right shoulder was the only compensable injury. The Court noted the WCJ's reliance on medical evidence, including the findings of the Independent Medical Evaluation (IME) panels and the credibility assessments of the Worker. The Court highlighted the WCJ's role in weighing conflicting testimony and found no misapplication of law in denying medical treatment for the right shoulder after February 2, 2012, or in denying PPD benefits, given the lack of evidence for a permanent impairment related to the compensable injury. The Court also addressed the Worker's additional arguments, concluding they were based on the assumption that other injuries were compensable, which was not supported by substantial evidence (paras 4-39).