Filed 12/22/05 Geo Group v. WCAB CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| GEO GROUP/THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STACY J. BALL,
Respondents.
| F047354
(WCAB Nos. FRE 0207333, FRE 0207331)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. William K. O'Brien, Merle C. Rabine, and Frank M. Brass, Commissioners. Keigo Obata, Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge.
Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi, and Shelley A.C. Quinn, for Petitioner.
No appearance by Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
The Goldberg Law Firm, and Michael Goldberg, for Respondent Stacy J. Ball.
-ooOoo-
Geo Group/The Wackenhut Corporation (Wackenhut) petitions this court for a writ of review contending the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) erred by: (1) inferring adversity from the failure to present witnesses, (2) issuing findings not supported by substantial evidence, and (3) not permitting the admission of medical reports after the close of discovery. We will deny the petition.
BACKGROUND
Stacy Ball (Ball) performed the duties of a correctional officer for Wackenhut, a private business that contracted with the state to provide correctional services at a facility in McFarland. Ball filed workers' compensation claims alleging she suffered from heat exposure (stroke), seizures, memory loss, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, a suicide attempt, and injury to her psyche caused by her employment on November 12, 2001, and during the period between December 16, 2000, and December 16, 2001. She alleged her injuries were caused from working outside in temperatures in excess of 110 degrees and from harassment from fellow employees.
On July, 19, 2002, Wackenhut's adjusting agency informed Ball it was denying her workers' compensation claim on the grounds there was no medical evidence to support her claim her injuries were work-related. The matter proceeded to a workers' compensation hearing on May 11, 2004, at which the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) heard Ball's testimony and admitted numerous medical reports. In a November 15, 2004, opinion, the WCJ noted that Wackenhut failed to present any testimony to rebut Ball's version of workplace events involving her allegations of heat stroke and stress, even though Wackenhut had listed eight employees on its witness list. Referencing Ball's unrebutted testimony and the various medical reports, the WCJ concluded that her injury was industrially related and caused her to become 85 percent permanently disabled, warranting $230 per week for 561.5 weeks plus $96.63 per week thereafter for life. On December 31, 2004, the WCAB denied Wackenhut's petition for reconsideration by adopting and incorporating the reasoning of the WCJ's report and recommendation.
DISCUSSION
I. Witness Testimony
Wackenhut contends the WCAB erred in adopting the WCJ's findings based on impermissibly inferring witness adversity by not presenting defense testimony from its employees. Wackenhut, however, misstates the facts by suggesting the only reason the WCJ issued a finding against Wackenhut was because of a lack of defense witnesses. Selectively quoting from the WCJ's November 15, 2004, opinion, Wackenhut argues:
â€
| Description | Workers compensation appeals board decision relating to a correctional facility. |
| Rating |
