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, Esmeralda Acosta, filed claims for compensation, alleging that a workplace accident resulted in a permanent disability. The claims were largely denied based on the failure to prove that the accident caused a permanent impairment.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Reg. C. Woodard, Workers’ Compensation Judge: The compensation order largely denied Worker's claims.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Contended that the workplace accident caused a permanent disability and sought further benefits. Argued that additional evidence, including check stubs and medical paperwork, supported her claims.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Relied on the testimony of Dr. Saiz to argue that the Worker did not prove the accident caused a permanent disability resulting in an impairment rating.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker is entitled to further benefits due to a permanent disability caused by a workplace accident.
• Whether additional evidence not included in the record could be considered on appeal.
• Whether dissatisfaction with legal representation provides a basis for relief on appeal.

Disposition

• The compensation order largely denying Worker's claims was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges J. MILES HANISEE, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge. The Court found Dr. Saiz's testimony more compelling than the conflicting evidence presented by the Worker, supporting the conclusion that the Worker did not prove the accident caused a permanent disability resulting in an impairment rating (paras 1-2). The Court also noted that the scope of review on appeal is limited to the material contained in the record, thus additional evidence the Worker wished to present could not be considered (para 3). Finally, the Court observed that dissatisfaction with legal representation, specifically the strategy employed and the result obtained, does not provide a basis for relief on appeal (para 4).