September, 2009

Rosa Alvarez (rosa Alvarez-garay), vs. Waterway Plastics; Us Fire Insurance Company, Administered By Matrix Absence Management, Inc.,

Leave a Comment / California, Oxnard / By Ashish

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Waterway Plastics; US Fire Insurance Company, administered by Matrix Absence Management, Inc., against Rosa Alvarez (Rosa Alvarez-Garay). 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 must be filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in San Francisco, California.

Thomas Vigil, vs. San Diego Unified School District, Permissibly Self-insured, Scrma,

Leave a Comment / California, San Diego / By Ashish

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, SCRMA, THOMAS VIGIL, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIATHOMAS VIGIL, Applicant,vs.SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, SCRMA, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3639705 (SDO 0351917)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION We previously granted applicant’s and defendant’s petitions for reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is …

Thomas Vigil, vs. San Diego Unified School District, Permissibly Self-insured, Scrma, Read More »

Corrine Shatzer, vs. Qualex, Inc.; Old Republic Insurance,

Leave a Comment / California, Sacramento / By Ashish

(SAC 0317143) is a case in which defendant Qualex, Inc. and Old Republic Insurance sought reconsideration of an earlier decision by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The decision reversed the apportionment of applicant Corrine Shatzer’s permanent disability because it was not supported by substantial medical evidence and amended the award of applicant’s attorney’s fees and rescinded the order disallowing Sutter’s lien. The defendant argued that instead of reversing the finding of apportionment, the Board should have rescinded the finding of permanent disability and returned the case to the trial level for development of the record on the issue of apportionment. The Board denied reconsideration because the defendant had notice before trial that the issue of app

PAUL SHANKS, vs. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY; ADMINISURE,

Leave a Comment / Anaheim, California / By Ashish

(AHM 0120623) is a case in which the County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County and Adminisure were defendants. The lien claimant, Outpatient Spine and Surgery Center, sought reconsideration of the “Order of Disallowance of Lien Claims” issued July 23, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that the lien claim of Outpatient Spine and Surgery Center was disallowed. The WCJ noted that the lien was beyond the time periods specified in Labor Code §4903.5(a) and defendant had reviewed and paid the lien in 2003. The WCJ also noted that defendant was charged with serving the Order upon lien claimant, but there was

Sudha Rajender, vs. Tobin Lucks; Malmquist, Fields & Camastra,

Leave a Comment / California, Santa Rosa / By Ashish

TOBIN LUCKS; MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA, SUDHA RAJENDER, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASUDHA RAJENDER, Applicant,vs.TOBIN LUCKS; MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA, Defendants.Case No. ADJ663546 (SRO 0136610)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant, Sudha Rajender, appearing in propria persona, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order, issued July 13, 2009, in which a workers’ compensation administrative …

Sudha Rajender, vs. Tobin Lucks; Malmquist, Fields & Camastra, Read More »

Marcial Bolanos, vs. Merit Masonry; And State Compensation Insurance Fund,

Leave a Comment / California, Riverside / By Ashish

(RIV 0075376)In this case, Merit Masonry and the State Compensation Insurance Fund were defendants in a workers’ compensation case brought by Marcial Bolanos. Bolanos alleged that he had sustained an industrial injury while employed by Merit Masonry, and sought compensation for medical treatment provided by Dean H. Shapiro, D.C. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that Merit Masonry had failed to provide Bolanos with a claim form, as required by Labor Code section 5401(a), and had not denied liability for the alleged injury until September 20, 2006. The Board found that Merit Masonry was liable for the medical treatment provided by Shapiro between August 14, 2004 (one day after its duty to provide

Elizabeth Alvarez, vs. Unico American Corporation; Explorer Insurance Company/icwgroup,

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Ashish

, UNICO AMERICAN CORPORATION , EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY/ICWGROUP , ELIZABETH ALVAREZ , WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIA , This case is about Elizabeth Alvarez, who was employed as an operations manager on May 3, 2002 and sustained an industrial injury to her low back/tailbone (coccyx), right knee and right ankle. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant’s petition for reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 9, 2009, which found that the injury to her right knee and right ankle was a compens

Antoinette Young, vs. Reviewco, Inc.; Aig Claims Services, Inc.,

Leave a Comment / California, Santa Ana / By Ashish

(ANA 0335456)This case involves a dispute between Antoinette Young, the applicant, and Reviewco, Inc. and AIG Claims Services, Inc., the defendants. Young sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder during the period January 26, 1998 through June 12, 1999. The parties agreed to Dr. Brourman as their Agreed Medical Examiner (AME). Applicant’s attorney set Dr. Brourman’s deposition for September 14, 2007, but defense counsel objected due to a calendar conflict. The deposition took place without defendant in attendance. The WCJ found that this was an ex-parte communication in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(e)-(f), and the WCJ excluded all of Dr

Daniel Villalpando, vs. Keepers Industries/ultimate Staffing Services; Republic Indemnity And Broadspire,

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Ashish

This case is about Daniel Villalpando’s appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to reconsider or remove an order rescinding an approved compromise and release and setting the matter for a conference. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied the petition for removal, finding that the order was not a final order and that defendant had failed to establish that the order would result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

William Henderson, vs. State Of California; Scif State Employees Commerce,

Leave a Comment / California, Los Angeles / By Ashish

In this case, the State of California, SCIF State Employees Commerce, and William Henderson were involved in a dispute over whether or not Henderson was entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that Henderson’s inchoate right to vocational rehabilitation benefits had not vested prior to the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, and thus granted the defendant’s appeal and vacated the Rehabilitation Unit’s Determination. The Board concluded that Henderson was not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits because his right to such benefits did not vest before the January 1, 2009 effective date of the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5.

September 2009