AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Worker-Appellant, Michael F. Redman, was involved in an accident and subsequently filed a claim for compensation. The claim was denied on the basis that he failed to provide timely notice of the accident to his employer, The McClain Company, and their insurer, Westport Insurance. The Worker contended that he did report the injury within the required timeframe and that the Employer/Insurer had even made voluntary payments of benefits.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge: The compensation order denied Worker's claims due to failure to provide timely notice.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the determination of failing to provide timely notice was not supported by substantial evidence. Contended that he did report his injury in a timely manner and highlighted the Employer/Insurer's voluntary payment of benefits as evidence of this. Also argued that the Employer/Insurer's evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Testimony from an office manager and a supervisor claimed that the Worker did not provide notice of the accident until nearly two months after its occurrence. They raised the issue of lack of notice as an affirmative defense.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker-Appellant provided timely notice of the accident to the Employer/Insurer as required by law.
• Whether the sixty-day notice requirement should apply due to Employer/Insurer’s alleged failure to demonstrate compliance with statutory posting requirements.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, denying Worker's claims based on failure to provide timely notice.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Cynthia A. Fry, Timothy L. Garcia, and M. Monica Zamora, affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge's decision. The Court applied the whole record standard of review and found that the evidence, particularly the testimony of the Employer/Insurer's office manager and supervisor, supported the determination that the Worker did not provide timely notice of his injury. The Worker's arguments and evidence presented were considered but were not sufficient to overturn the decision. The Court also addressed the Worker's contention regarding the sixty-day notice requirement, concluding that the Worker failed to timely raise and prove the applicability of this requirement. The Court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards regarding notice requirements and the burden of proof in workers' compensation cases (paras 3-7).