March, 2011 - CompFox

Joni Lamkin vs. Department Of Transportation; State Compensation Insurance Fund

Leave a Comment / California, Redding / By Ashish

This case involves three separate applications filed by Joni Lamkin for workers’ compensation benefits. The Department of Transportation and the State Compensation Insurance Fund are the defendants. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant’s petition for reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ’s decision, returning the matters to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. The WCJ had found that Lamkin had sustained three industrial injuries and was entitled to 15 percent permanent disability on the cervical and upper extremity claims and 42 percent permanent disability on the psyche claim. The Appeals Board found that the WCJ had erred in his decision and that the physician’s report did not adequately explain why the standard method was inadequate for determining Lamkin’s impairment and how the alternate method

Javier Garcia vs. International Lining Technology; State Compensation Insurance Fund

Leave a Comment / Anaheim, California / By Ashish

International Lining Technology; State Compensation Insurance Fund Javier Garcia WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJAVIER GARCIA, Applicant,vs.INTERNATIONAL LINING TECHNOLOGY; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ1967405 (AHM 0148918)OPINION AND ORDER AFTER RECONSIDERATION Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (FAO) issued on January 14, 2010, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found …

Javier Garcia vs. International Lining Technology; State Compensation Insurance Fund Read More »

Jerry Duarte (deceased) Shirley Duarte (widow) vs. Stoesser Industries; Scif Insured Pleasanton; Fireman’s Fund Sacramento

Leave a Comment / California, Oakland / By Ashish

(OAK 0336096) In this case, Shirley Duarte, the widow of Jerry Duarte, claimed that her husband sustained an industrial injury due to exposure to carcinogenic chemicals while employed by Stoesser Industries, resulting in his death by cancer on March 17, 2006. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues and ultimately found that Duarte’s claim was not barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Gary Zimmerman vs. Leprino Foods, Inc., Administered By Matrix Absence Management Company

Leave a Comment / California, Fresno / By Ashish

(FRE 0236947) is a case in which Gary Zimmerman, an employee of Leprino Foods, Inc., administered by Matrix Absence Management Company, sought reconsideration of a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) that Leprino Foods had violated Section 13(c) of the “Agreement Between Leprino Foods Company Lemmore, California Plant and Creamery Employees and Drivers Teamsters Local Union 517,” and that in terminating Zimmerman on May 3, 2006, Leprino Foods had not violated Labor Code section 132a. The WCJ ordered Leprino Foods to reinstate Zimmerman to the position he held at the time of his injury of May 30, 2005, and to pay him the pay

Andrew Weiss vs. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Et Al.

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

In this case, Andrew Weiss, an employee of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., filed a petition under Labor Code section 132a, claiming that he was fired for submitting a workers’ compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) issued a 20-day Notice of Intention to dismiss applicant Andrew Weiss’s petition under Labor Code section 132a, with prejudice. Weiss objected to the NIT, but the Appeals Board rejected his assertion and held him to his agreement to release his 132a claim and not to commence, maintain or prosecute it. The Appeals Board affirmed the Findings and Order of July 1, 2010, and dismissed Weiss’s petition under Labor Code section 132a, with prejudice.

David Warner vs. Hearth And Home Technologies; Hartford

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

Hearth And Home Technologies; Hartford David Warner WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADAVID WARNER, Applicant,vs.HEARTH AND HOME TECHNOLOGIES; HARTFORD, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ7099054OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 11, 2011 Findings and Award, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a …

David Warner vs. Hearth And Home Technologies; Hartford Read More »

Juan Palma vs. Norman’s Nursery Wholesale Growers

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

(MON 0362437)In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for disqualification of Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge Simone M. Blais, filed by lien claimant Elliott J. Wachtel, who was the applicant’s prior attorney. The petition was denied because it was not verified upon oath or supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. The WCJ also denied any bias against the lien claimant.

Dario Ochoa vs. De Martini Incorporated And California Agricultural Network Self-insured Group Adjusted By Intercare Holdings Insurance Services Incorporated

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration and denied the Petition for Removal. The Board determined that the order in the case did not dispose of the substantive rights and liabilities of those involved, and therefore was not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board also adopted the Report and Recommendation of the WCJ in denying the Petition for Removal.

Salvador Landin vs. Staffmark Investment; Chartis San Diego

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Law Offices of Blomberg, Benson & Garrett, Inc. (BB&G) and rescinded the orders served on January 13, 2011. The Board returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The Board found that the WCJ had issued the orders without any notice and opportunity to be heard and without any evidence in the record establishing the amount of costs he ordered BB&G to pay. The Board also found that the WCJ had several legitimate options on January 6, 2011, including proceeding with the scheduled trial, and that the option

Jasmine Huynh vs. Supplemental Health Care Ad American Home Assurance Company, Adjusted By Chartis Insurance

Leave a Comment / California, Oakland / By Ashish

This case involves a worker’s compensation claim by Jasmine Huynh for injuries sustained while working as a nurse on December 21, 2006. Huynh’s claim includes injury to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral shoulders, psyche, and upper extremities. The case was taken off calendar due to the lack of a final evaluation from the panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Huynh’s amendment of her claim to include injury to her psyche at the May 12, 2010 Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC), and potentially relevant medical records from Huynh’s prior back injury claim not being available at the MSC and not being reviewed by any of the physicians evaluating Huynh in this matter. Huynh

March 2011