What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; Joint Findings, Award and Order of August 31, 2020, affirmed.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant challenging the finding of industrial causation of applicant's death; WCJ issued Joint Report recommending denial of petition; Board reviewed and affirmed WCJ's decision after reconsideration.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ and Board found the applicant met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, relying on the persuasive medical opinion of Dr. Hirsch over Dr. Sachs, and unrebutted evidence of exposure to pulmonary irritants at work contributing to death from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
From the decision · page 5Defendant's contention in the petition for reconsideration is that the applicant did not meet her burden and prove that her husband death was related to his employment at Clorox. Defendant also contends that the reporting of Dr. Sachs is more accurate than that of Dr. Hirsch. The court found the applicant met her burden and that the reporting of Dr. Hirsch was far more persuasive on injury AOE/COE than the reporting of Dr. Sachs. The doctors must look at the record as a whole; the court does not believe Dr. Sachs did. As indicated in the opinion on decision, one of the issues the court wanted the doctors to address base on its prior orders for developing the record was, was the applicant's death related to his exposure to the chemicals at Clorox. Did it cause, contribute to, or hasten the applicant's demise in any way. Dr. Sachs made a finding that the applicant's death was not caused by his employment.