Miller v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Before: Danielson
Opinion
DANIELSON, J. Petitioner (applicant) seeks review of the decision of respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying applicant’s petition to reopen for new and further disability.
[352]We annul the Board’s decision because the Board erred in determining applicant did not sustain new and further disability attributable to industrial injury.
Procedural and Factual Background
Applicant was employed as a firefighter by defendant County of Los Angeles from August 1956 through May 13, 1982.
During a routine medical examination on May 13, 1982, it was discovered applicant had left ventricular hypertrophy.
In June 1982 Dr. Swan concluded applicant should retire because he had relatively severe aortic valve disease; he had relatively severe branch stenoses in the left coronary system; the aortic valve needed replacement; and he might benefit from bypass surgery.
Dr. Gillis reported applicant’s defective aortic valve was congenital and malfunctioned solely as a result of nonindustrial factors; applicant had atherosclerosis that may have been industrially aggravated; and he is precluded from very heavy and emotionally stressful work.
Dr. Joseph, noting that applicant had a heart murmur in 1980, concluded applicant had hypertension, arteriosclerosis, hyperlipidemia, and an aortic valve dysfunction; industrial emotional stress contributed to the development of the hypertension, arteriosclerosis, and hyperlipidemia; and applicant should avoid emotional stress and heavy lifting.
The parties stipulated that during the August 1956 through May 13, 1982, period of applicant’s employment he sustained industrial injury to his heart, back, and right wrist, resulting in 51 percent permanent disability and need for further medical treatment. At the time of the stipulations the parties were aware of applicant’s aortic valve disease.
On April 13, 1983, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) awarded permanent disability indemnity and further medical treatment pursuant to the stipulations.
Thereafter, in October 1983, applicant underwent surgery for replacement of the aortic valve.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)