March, 2009 - CompFox

Gilroy Smith (deceased) Iliana Smith, Et Al., vs. Rio Linda Unified School District; And Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,

Leave a Comment / California, Sacramento / By Chris Lyle

This case involves a worker’s compensation claim by the dependants of Gilroy Smith, a food service worker for the Rio Linda Unified School District, who died on March 22, 2005. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that Smith sustained an admitted industrial injury to his left shoulder and elbows on December 5, 2000, and that the injury caused 39% permanent disability, an aggravation of his hepatitis C, and subsequently his death. The Board awarded the dependants permanent disability indemnity totaling $32,130 and death benefits. After reconsideration, the Board affirmed the Findings, Award and Order of November 21, 2008.

Deanna Murray, vs. Intuit, Inc; Specialty Risk Services,

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Chris Lyle

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the orders of December 8, 2008 and December 23, 2008 suspending proceedings and/or barring payment of benefits due to the applicant’s failure to appear at a deposition. The Board concluded that no legal authority exists to bar payment of benefits or suspend proceedings for failure to appear at a deposition. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a decision consistent with the opinions expressed.

Cathy D. Kraus, vs. Veterinary Surgical Associates; Fireman’s Fund,

Leave a Comment / California, Oakland / By Chris Lyle

This case involves a dispute between Cathy D. Kraus, an employee, and Veterinary Surgical Associates and Fireman’s Fund, her employers, regarding the rate of temporary disability indemnity she is entitled to. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ’s Findings and Award of December 31, 2008, rescinded the decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision. The Board found that the parties had stipulated to one rate of temporary disability indemnity for the 2001 injury in 2006, and then purportedly modified their stipulation in 2008, but it was unclear from the record whether the 2008 stipulation was properly recorded or should be given effect. The Board also found that the WCJ did not

David Keller, vs. California State Automobile Association; Travelers Insurance Company,

Leave a Comment / California, Stockton / By Chris Lyle

(STK 0138641) is a case in which the California State Automobile Association and Travelers Insurance Company sought reconsideration of a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board decision that found the applicant, David Keller, had sustained injury to his neck and left shoulder as the result of cumulative trauma and was entitled to a gym membership and an inversion table. The defendant argued that the WCJ had wrongfully denied their request to cross-examine the applicant and that this denial violated their due process rights. The Appeals Board granted the defendant’s petition for reconsideration, rescinded the Findings and Award issued December 31, 2008, and returned the matter to the trial level so that the defendant could cross-examine the applicant regarding his claim for medical care

Douglas Blixt, vs. County Of Sacramento, Permissibly Self-insured,

Leave a Comment / California, Sacramento / By Chris Lyle

This case involves a dispute between Douglas Blixt, the applicant, and the County of Sacramento, the defendant, over attorney’s fees and sanctions. The defendant sought reconsideration or removal following the January 5, 2009 Order of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denying its petition for attorney’s fees and sanctions. The WCJ’s order was affirmed, except that the petitions for penalties and sanctions were deferred. The matter was returned to the hearing level for further proceedings and a decision by the WCJ consistent with this decision.

John Tomkies, vs. City Of Los Angeles Department Of Transportation, Permissibly Self Insured;

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Chris Lyle

CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, permissibly self insured; JOHN TOMKIES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOHN TOMKIES, Applicant,vs.CITY OF LOS ANGELES – DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,permissibly self insured; DefendantsCase No. ADJ298021 (VNO 443400)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION Defendant City of Los Angeles (City) seeks reconsideration of the December 29, 2008 Findings and Award of the …

John Tomkies, vs. City Of Los Angeles Department Of Transportation, Permissibly Self Insured; Read More »

Rafael Ruiz, vs. Farmer Brothers Coffee, Permissibly Self-insured,

Leave a Comment / California, Long Beach / By Chris Lyle

This case is about Farmer Brothers Coffee, a company that was permissibly self-insured, and Rafael Ruiz, an employee of the company. Ruiz claimed he sustained an industrial injury to his spine, head, and upper extremities during a period through June 7, 2002, while employed by Farmer Brothers Coffee. Tri-City Regional Medical Center filed a lien claim for approximately $9,000 in medical treatment that it provided to Ruiz purportedly in relation to his industrial injuries. The workers’ compensation judge found that Ruiz did not sustain an industrial injury and dismissed the lien claim. Tri-City Regional Medical Center filed a petition for reconsideration, arguing that it did not receive notice of the trial and that the medical treatment it provided

Narcisa Quiroga-rubio, vs. Tehachapi Hospital, Permissibly Self-insured; Healthcare Alliance,

Leave a Comment / Bakersfield, California / By Chris Lyle

This case involves a workers’ compensation claim by Narcisa Quiroga-Rubio against Tehachapi Hospital, Permissibly Self-Insured; Healthcare Alliance. The applicant sustained admitted injury to her low back and non-admitted injury to her bilateral knees while employed as an admitting clerk. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the Findings, Awards & Orders of December 29, 2008, and rescinded the decision, returning the case to the trial level for further development of the medical record and decision due to the WCJ’s reliance on an outdated medical report. The Board found that the report did not comply with the mandates of Labor Code § 4663 or the Escobedo decision, and that the

Rafael Rivas, vs. Stefan Merli Plastering Co; State Compensation Insurance Fund Insured Glendale,

Leave a Comment / Anaheim, California / By Chris Lyle

In this case, Rafael Rivas, an employee of Stefan Merli Plastering Co., sought reconsideration of an Amended Joint Findings and Orders issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) which reversed the WCJ’s prior determination and granted the defendant’s appeal from a Determination of the Rehabilitation Unit awarding vocational rehabilitation benefits to the applicant. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the Amended Joint Findings and Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the Statute of Limitations in Labor Code section 5410 did not bar the reinstatement of vocational rehabilitation benefits, as the Appeals Board maintained jurisdiction over vocational rehabilitation as the applicant had been continuously temporarily disabled and

Chauncey Hughes, vs. City Of Los Angeles, Permissibly Self- Insured; Tristar Risk Management,

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Chris Lyle

(MON 292120)This case is about the City of Los Angeles, which is permissibly self-insured, and Tristar Risk Management, who were found liable for a worker’s compensation claim. The worker’s compensation judge found that the defendants had unreasonably delayed payment of $51,153.85, and assessed a Labor Code § 5814 penalty in the amount of $10,000. The WCJ also found that attorney fees were appropriate. The defendants sought reconsideration, arguing that they had not been properly served with the decision. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the Findings and Award of January 7, 2009, and issued a new decision reflecting that the defendants had not unreasonably delayed payment. The applicant

March 2009