Webdecision from the court of Appeal in City of Petaluma v. WCAB (Lindh). In Lindh the Court of Appeal held that “[u]nder the current law, the salient question is whether the disability resulted from both industrial and nonindustrial causes, and if so, apportionment is required.” (citing, Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Web“‘We review the Board's factual findings for substantial evidence, but we [**880] review its legal decisions de novo.’ [Citation.] If ‘“a workers' compensation decision rests on the Board's erroneous interpretation of the law, the reviewing [****8] court will annul the decision.”’ [Citation.]” (City of Petaluma v.

Workers

WebAntitrust and Unfair Competition Law; Business Law; Criminal Law; Environmental Law; Family Law; Intellectual Property Law; International Law and Immigration WebCity of Petaluma, when, on February 20, 2024, while sitting in his patrol car, he twisted his neck to relieve tension in his upper back and shoulders. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence dated September 5, 2024 at page 3:2224.) - ... Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to this ... cmc cover

E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers

WebDespite the changes in apportionment law, the WCAB has been reluctant to allow apportionment when characterized as to risk factors. Citing the well-established case of … WebCity of Petaluma v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., (Lindh) (2024) 29 Cal.App.5th 1175 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1869]; ers' City of Jackson v. Work Comp. Appeals Bd(Rice)., (2024) … WebFeb 5, 2024 · City of Petaluma v. WCAB (Lindh) QME: can't know if pre-existing condition would result in "stroke" but for blow BUT blindness may have occurred without the trauma www.bradfordbarthel.com 40 City of Petaluma v. WCAB (Lindh) 2/5/2024 21 QME: • 85% = pre-existing vasospastic • 15% = blow cmc creative parkside