January, 2009 - CompFox

Starr Olson, vs. Hacienda Brides International, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

HACIENDA BRIDES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STARR OLSON, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASTARR OLSON, Applicant,vs.HACIENDA BRIDES INTERNATIONAL,INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2500785 (MON 0261411)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), on behalf of its insured, Hacienda Brides International, Inc., seeks reconsideration of the …

Starr Olson, vs. Hacienda Brides International, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Read More »

Martha Hernandez, vs. Marriott International, Inc.; Permissibly Self-insured, Administered By Marriott Claims Services,

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

In this case, Martha Hernandez sought reconsideration of a decision filed on November 26, 2008. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration in order to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in the case. All further correspondence, objections, motions, requests and communications were to be filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in San Francisco, California.

Maria Geronimo (deceased), (maria Ligaya Geronimo) vs. Tyco International And Sedgwick Claims Management,

Leave a Comment / California, Oakland / By Ashish

This case involves a dispute between Maria Geronimo (deceased) and Tyco International and Sedgwick Claims Management. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant’s petition for reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ’s decision, except that Finding of Fact number 2 was amended to include acknowledgement of the stipulation of the parties which determined that lien claimant’s payment would be calculated using the Official Medical Fee Schedule.

April Edsberg, vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

In the case of April Edsberg vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant’s petition for reconsideration in order to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues in the case. All further correspondence, objections, motions, requests and communications were to be filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The decision was dated and filed at San Francisco, California on January 30, 2009 and service was made by mail on the same date to the persons listed on the current official address record.

Silviano Dela Torre, vs. Pete Postma Dairy; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

Leave a Comment / California, Stockton / By Ashish

This case is about Silviano De La Torre, who was injured when a 1000 pound hay bale fell on him, fracturing his pelvis, a separation of the pubic symphysis, and injuring his low back and psyche. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to rescind the Findings, Award and Orders, and returned the case to the trial level for the limited purpose of reconsidering the proper permanent disability rating under the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule, relying on all factors of disability as found by the evaluating physicians.

Michael Cavette, vs. Express Personnel Services; Claim Metrics,

Leave a Comment / California, Redding / By Ashish

(RDG 0129954) is a case in which Michael Cavette, an applicant, sought reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (“WCJ”) Findings and Order of November 7, 2008, wherein the WCJ found that, while employed as a waste water technician during a cumulative period ending on November 15, 2007, applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his bilateral wrists, hands, and neck. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant’s petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ’s Findings and Order. The WCJ noted discrepancies between the history provided by the applicant to a panel qualified medical evaluator and the WCJ’s findings at trial, and found the testimony of defense witnesses to

Vernita Carey, vs. Long Beach Unified School District; Permissibly Self-insured, C/o Tristar,

Leave a Comment / California, Long Beach / By Ashish

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision from a workers’ compensation administrative law judge and rescinded the decision. The Board returned the matter to the trial level to allow the parties to reconstruct the file, and the WCJ may take into account the pleadings and issue or reissue a new decision. The Board also preserved the rights of the parties to again seek reconsideration if necessary.

Douglas Boulware, vs. Los Angeles County Fire Department; Tristar,

Leave a Comment / Anaheim, California / By Ashish

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in Los Angeles County Fire Department and Tristar v. Douglas Boulware. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the arbitrator’s decision, and returned the matter to the arbitrator for further proceedings and decision. The Board’s decision is not a final decision on the merits of any issues raised.

Richard Ross vs. Conoco Phillips; Ace

Leave a Comment / California, Long Beach / By Ashish

is a case in which Richard Ross, the applicant, is appealing a decision made by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The Board denied Ross’ petition for reconsideration, which was filed in a timely manner, but was not brought to the Board’s attention until after the 60-day statutory period. The Board found that Ross would have retired at age 65 had he not sustained an injury at work, and was therefore entitled to temporary disability benefits. The Board denied the petition for reconsideration.

Priscilla Maxim, vs. Lacmta; Travelers,

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Ashish

In this case, Priscilla Maxim was appealing a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The Board granted reconsideration of the decision, rescinded the decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ. This is not a final decision on the merits of any issues raised.

January 2009