 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Republic Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Melvin Dickens12/13/1982
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
Civ. No. 65810
1982.CA.40083 ; 187 Cal. Rptr. 636; 138 Cal. App. 3d 42
December 13, 1982
REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, PETITIONER,
v.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND MELVIN DICKENS, RESPONDENTS
Schummer & Barton and Terence L. Rolbin for Petitioner.
Stoll, Nussbaum & Williams and Bruce Lee Williams for Respondents.
Opinion by Compton, J., with Roth, P. J., and Beach, J., concurring.
Compton
In this case the workers' compensation trial judge denied applicant's claim for benefits on the grounds that the applicant's intoxication was a substantial factor in the accident which resulted in his injury.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) granted reconsideration and in its opinion, order and decision after reconsideration opined that the defendant employer had "not met its burden of establishing that the injury was caused by applicant's intoxication." The Board then remanded the matter to the trial level for decision on the "remaining issues." We granted employer's petition for a writ of review.
In reviewing the decision of the Board we must determine only whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. However, that determination must be made on the basis of the entire record "rather than by simply isolating evidence which supports the board and ignoring other relevant facts of record which rebut or explain that evidence." (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 312 at p. 317 [90 Cal. Rptr. 355, 475 P.2d 451].)
When the trial judge's decision is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the Board should give to it great weight and reject it only on the basis of contrary evidence which is of considerable substantiality. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., supra; Greenberg v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 792 [112 Cal. Rptr. 626].)
Further, we, as part of our review of the entire record, consider matters judicially noticed as being of common knowledge as well as the reasonableness and fairness of the Board's decision in light of the purposes and objectives of the workers' compensation law. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 647 [160 Cal. Rptr. 597].)
As we will point out the decision of the trial judge who heard the evidence first hand and observed the witnesses, was based on overwhelming evidence. The Board, however, on the basis of that same evidence and after impliedly accepting the trial judge's determination of the credibility of the witnesses, rejected the trial judge's decision.
Hence the Board's decision failed to accord any weight to the trial judge's decision and was itself unsupported by any contrary evidence of substantiality. In summary, the Board's decision amounts to nothing more than an artificial interpretation of the evidence which totally ignores reality and human experience.
The Facts
Applicant was employed by Cedars Sinai Medical Center (employer) for approximately four years before the accident upon which his claim for workers' compensation is based. His job was described as "lead technician" i
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|