Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.

11 Citing cases

  1. State Employees' Retirement v. Workmen's Comp

    267 Cal.App.2d 611 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 12 times
    In State Employees' Retirement System v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 611, 616 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 172], we observed: "Obviously, heart disease may develop without manifesting itself.

    (Cf. Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 532-533 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 405].) A court cannot say, as a matter of law, that this finding is without substantial support in the evidence.

  2. Taylor v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

    148 Cal.App.3d 678 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 3 times

    (Cf. Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 532-533 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 405].) A court cannot say, as a matter of law, that this finding is without substantial support in the evidence.

  3. Scheffield Medical Group, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

    70 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 21 times

    However, the WCJ's remarks are not relevant as the Board has the authority to re-weigh the evidence and make new findings of fact. (Lab. Code, § 5907; Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 529 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 405].) This court has no authority to reverse findings of fact based on substantial evidence.

  4. Sabedra v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.

    42 Cal.App.3d 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 2 times

    Lamb, however, does not purport to strike down the statutory authority of the board to "affirm, rescind, alter or amend the order, decision or award made and filed by the appeals board or referee" (Lab. Code, § 5907). The power of the board to "choose among conflicting medical reports those which it deems most persuasive" is unquestioned ( Jones v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 476, 479 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 544, 439 P.2d 648]; see also Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 529 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 405], and cases there cited). Nor, on the face of the Messinger report, can we say that it is not of "considerable substantiality."

  5. Baker v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.

    18 Cal.App.3d 852 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 26 times
    Recognizing the validity of a claim for workers' compensation recovery based on "cardiac neurosis" caused by the stresses and anxieties of employment

    (3) However, the board is empowered to annul a referee's findings and substitute its own findings and decision in light of all the evidence in the record and in so doing may choose among conflicting competent medical opinions those which it deems most persuasive. ( Jones v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 476, 479 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 544, 439 P.2d 648]; Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 529 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 405].) (1b) In the instant case a fair evaluation of the evidence discloses substantial, solid medical evidentiary support for the board's finding that petitioner does not have heart disease.

  6. Rushing v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.

    15 Cal.App.3d 517 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 8 times

    ( Id. at p. 439.) Moreover, although the board is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence ( Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 33 Cal.2d 89, 93 [ 199 P.2d 302]; Pacific Freight Lines v. Industrial Acc. Com., 26 Cal.2d 234, 240-241 [ 157 P.2d 634]), to make its own credibility determinations ( McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 697, 445 P.2d 313]; Granco Steel, Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 191, 197 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 287, 436 P.2d 287]; Alexander v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 262 Cal.App.2d 756, 758 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 190]; Wilhelm v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 255 Cal.App.2d 30, 33 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 829]), and upon reconsideration to reject the findings of the referee and enter its own findings on the basis of its review of the record (Lab. Code, § 5907; Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 529 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 405]; Wilhelm v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., supra; Montyk v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 245 Cal.App.2d 334, 335 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 848]), nevertheless, any award, order or decision of the board must be supported by substantial evidence in the light of the entire record (Lab. Code, § 5952; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 208, 463 P.2d 432])."

  7. Cal-Nat Airways, Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.

    268 Cal.App.2d 93 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 5 times

    [1] The courts will not disturb WCAB findings of fact which are supported by substantial evidence, even when the board on reconsideration reaches findings contrary to those of the referee. ( Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 529 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 405]; Montyk v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 245 Cal.App.2d 334, 335 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 848].) Nevertheless, when a seeming finding embraces a conclusion that the facts do or don't create a legal relationship, the question is one of law. ( Granco Steel, Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 191, 197 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 287, 436 P.2d 287].)

  8. Alex Robles, Applicant v. Southern California Gas Company, permissibly self-insured; Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendants

    No. ADJ8075448 (Cal. W.C.A.B. Apr. 7, 2022)

    I. When a petition for reconsideration is filed, the Appeals Board has the power to reweigh the evidence, make an independent examination of the record, and reach a different conclusion than was reached by the WCJ. (Lab. Code, §§ 5907, 5315; Buescher v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 529 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 537] (Buescher); Allied Comp. Ins. v. I.A.C. (1961) 57 Cal.2d 115 [26 Cal.Comp.Cases 241] (Lintz); Garza v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; Mendoza v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 820 [41 Cal.Comp.Cases 71].) The Appeals Board can annul the findings of the trial-level WCJ judge and substitute its own findings and decision in light of all the evidence in the record.

  9. Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.

    3 Cal.3d 312 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 508 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Garza, the appellate court held substantial evidence did not support an appeal board's decision because, pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Act, the board did not resolve evidentiary doubts in favor of the employee, nor did it accept the employee's uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence.

    (Id. at p. 439, 71 Cal.Rptr. 684.) Moreover, although the board is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 33 Cal.2d 89, 93; Pacific Freight Lines v. Ind. Acc. Com., 26 Cal.2d 234, 240--241), to make its own credibility determinations (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 71 Cal.Rptr. 697; Granco Steel, Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 191, 197, 65 Cal.Rptr. 287; Alexander v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 262 Cal.App.2d 756, 758, 69 Cal.Rptr. 190; Wilhelm v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 255 Cal.App.2d 30, 33, 62 Cal.Rptr. 829), and upon reconsideration to reject the findings of the referee and enter its own findings on the basis of its review of the record (Lab.Code, § 5907; Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 529, 11 Cal.Rptr. 405; Wilhelm v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., Supra; Montyk v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 245 Cal.App.2d 334, 335, 53 Cal.Rptr. 848), nevertheless, any award, order or decision of the board must be supported by substantial evidence in the light of the entire record (Lab.Code, § 5952; LeVesque v. Work men's Comp. App. Bd., 1 Cal.3d 627, 635, 83 Cal.Rptr. 208).         In LeVesque, supra, this court rejected prior decisions which suggested that the board's decision would be sustained if supported by any evidence whatsoever, and we determined that the test of substantiality must be measured 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 emplain that evidence.

  10. Rushing v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd.

    92 Cal. Rptr. 605 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 1 times

    (Id. at p. 439, 71 Cal.Rptr. 684, 445 P.2d 300.) Moreover, although the board is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 33 Cal.2d 89, 93, 199 P.2d 302; Pacific Freight Lines v. Ind. Acc. Com., 26 Cal.2d 234, 240-241, 157 P.2d 634), to make its own credibility determinations (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 71 Cal.Rptr. 697, 445 P.2d 313; Granco Steel, Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 191, 197, 65 Cal.Rptr. 287, 436 P.2d 287; Alexander v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 262 Cal.App.2d 756, 758, 69 Cal.Rptr. 190; Wilhelm v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 255 Cal.App.2d 30, 33, 62 Cal.Rptr. 829), and upon reconsideration to reject the findings of the referee and enter its own findings on the basis of its review of the record (Lab.Code, § 5907; Buescher v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 265 Cal.App.2d 520, 529, 71 Cal.Rptr. 405; Wilhelm v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., supra; Montyk v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 245 Cal.App.2d 334, 335, 53 Cal.Rptr. 848), nevertheless, any award, order or decision of the board must be supported by substantial evidence in the light of the entire record (Lab.Code, § 5952; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 1 Cal.3d 627, 635, 83 Cal.Rptr. 208, 463 P.2d 432). The decision of the Appeals Board is annulled and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.