On Sept. 25, 2018, applicant Joseph Chiroglyan, 62, a security officer, was stationed at a supermarket in Reseda, working his usual and customary duties, when he confronted two teenage shoplifters. An altercation ensued, during which Chiroglyan was struck in the head with a bottle of alcohol and shocked with a Taser before striking the ground. Chiroglyan sustained to his head, neck, left knee and left shoulder. Chiroglyan filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Professional Private Security, which was insured by the State Compensation Insurance Fund. He brought a claim against the respondent in an attempt to collect workers’ compensation benefits., Chiroglyan sustained a scalp laceration, and both the police report and early medical reports indicated that Chiroglyan was dazed and experienced an immediate onset of nausea after the incident. He received emergency medical treatment and was discharged home. However, his loved ones claimed that it became apparent that Chiroglyan was not who he used to be, as they noticed minor changes with his behavior and cognition. After a comprehensive neurological workup, it was determined that Chiroglyan had sustained a mild traumatic brain injury in the form of a concussion. As a result, he was admitted to a neurorehabilitation facility, where a physician reported that Chiroglyan’s cognitive and neurobehavioral impairments, as well as emotional distress, presented risks to his ability to function safely and independently. Chiroglyan claimed he sustained a mild traumatic brain injury, and suffered from left shoulder impingement syndrome, chronic neck pain, chronic left shoulder pain and chronic left knee pain because of the incident. He also claimed that he now suffers from short-term memory impairment, dizziness with worsened exertion, decreased vision in his eyes, anxiety, paranoia and impaired balance. Chiroglyan’s counsel contended that Chiroglyan was 100 percent permanently disabled and unable to compete in the open labor market. Counsel also contended that Chiroglyan requires lifelong care for his invisible brain injury. The respondent’s counsel disputed the nature and extent of Chiroglyan’s . Counsel also contended that Chiroglyan did not require long-term neurorehabilitation.