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-Appellant was involved in an accident which he claims occurred due to a cardiac arrest while driving, leading to his claim for compensation benefits. The accident reconstructionist and medical care providers concluded that the cardiac arrest was the cause of the accident, based on the conditions at the scene and the Worker's statements to medical care providers.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Shannon S. Riley, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Denied Worker's claims for benefits due to failure to prove causation.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the accident was unexplained and, therefore, causation should be presumed in his favor.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Supported the Workers’ Compensation Judge's (WCJ) determination that the Worker is not entitled to benefits due to his failure to prove causation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker-Appellant is entitled to benefits due to the accident being caused by a cardiac arrest while driving.
• Whether causation should be presumed in favor of the Worker-Appellant due to the accident being unexplained.

Disposition

• The compensation order denying Worker's claims was affirmed.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges M. Monica Zamora, James J. Wechsler, and J. Miles Hanisee, unanimously affirmed the WCJ's decision. The court found that the Worker-Appellant's argument that causation should be presumed because the accident was unexplained was unpersuasive. The evidence, including the accident reconstructionist's and medical care providers' conclusions that the Worker suffered a cardiac arrest which caused the accident, was deemed sufficient to support the WCJ's determination. The court held that the inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence were reasonable and adequately supported the conclusions. The court emphasized that it was within the WCJ's purview as the finder of fact to resolve matters of conflicting inferences and that the standard of review upheld the WCJ's determination.