February, 2012 - CompFox

ALICE WU vs. PANDELCO INC. Dba LA MOVERS AND SEABRIGHT INS. CO.

Leave a Comment / California, Marina del Rey / By Ashish

In this case, Alice Wu filed a workers’ compensation claim against Pandelco Inc. dba LA Movers and Seabright Ins. Co. Defendant filed an unverified document requesting the removal of Dr. Steven Silbart as the Agreed Medical Examiner and Motion to Find His Report Dated 3/9/11 Inadmissible. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board treated this document as a Petition for Removal pursuant to Labor Code section 5310 and WCAB Rule 10843, but dismissed it as there was no order or decision as to which defendant sought removal. The issue identified by defendant can be addressed at the trial level at the next Mandatory Settlement Conference or other appropriate time.

MATTHEW WILL (Deceased) DIANA WILL (Widow) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Leave a Comment / California, San Jose / By Ashish

is a case in which the State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, legally uninsured, sought reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order, issued May 19, 2011, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found Matthew Will, while employed as a firefighter on October 8, 2007, sustained an industrial injury resulting in his death on October 9, 2007. The WCJ awarded death benefits in the sum of $320,000.00 to the decedent’s widow and her two minor children, as provided in Labor Code section 4702. The WCJ also found defendant was obligated to pay continuation benefits to the minor children pursuant to Labor Code section 4703.5(a). The defendant contested the

ALFONSO PONCE DE LEON vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES; CORVEL INSURANCE

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

is a case in which Alfonso Ponce De Leon, the applicant, was injured while employed by Barrett Business Services, Inc. The defendant, Barrett Business Services, sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) which found that the applicant was entitled to obtain medical treatment outside of the defendant’s validly formed Medical Provider Network (MPN). The WCJ found that there was a lack of doctors within the MPN willing to provide treatment for the applicant’s industrial injury. After review of the record, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the Findings and Award, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

VISITACION PABELLANO vs. PACIFIC CARE OF CALIFORNIA; TRAVELERS INSURANCE Adjusted By BROADSPIRE

Leave a Comment / California, Marina del Rey / By Ashish

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration of lien claimant Charles Schwarz, M.D. The WCJ had concluded that lien claimant did not carry its burden of proving all of the elements necessary to the establishment of its lien. The evidence showed that lien claimant billed a total amount of $28,451.53 and that defendant paid $14,024.91, leaving an unpaid balance of $14,426.62. However, the unrebutted testimony of defendant’s bill reviewer was that Dr. Schwarz was entitled to payment totaling no more than $12,917.88. In addition, Dr. Schwarz failed to explain other problems with his billings and

MARIA LOPEZ vs. LUIS AND DOLORES MORALES; STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

Leave a Comment / California, Stockton / By Ashish

is a case in which Maria Lopez, a housekeeper, filed a petition for reconsideration after the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Lopez alleged that she had suffered an injury while performing her job duties on January 21, 2011. The Board found that Lopez had not worked the minimum number of hours required by the Labor Code in the 90 days prior to her injury, and thus was excluded from workers’ compensation coverage. The Board denied her petition for reconsideration, and the case was closed.

Martin Paul Kent vs. South Feather Water And Power Agency, Permissibly Self-insured, Administered By Acwa Ipia

Leave a Comment / California, Redding / By Ashish

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration of a decision issued on May 26, 2010 by Martin Paul Kent against South Feather Water and Power Agency, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By ACWA IPIA. The Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by the petitioner, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition.

ALMA HUDSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/CHILD SUPPORT; Permissibly Self-insured By INTERCARE

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Ashish

This case is about Alma Hudson, who sustained an industrial injury on October 6, 2004 to her neck, knees and upper extremities that caused permanent disability of 33% and temporary disability from October 6, 2004 through December 28, 2004. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the November 4, 2011 Findings, Award and Order and ultimately affirmed the decision, finding that the applicant was entitled to a penalty for the defendant’s failure to pay permanent disability benefits and that the defendant was not entitled to a credit for overpayment of temporary disability.

JAMES DORSETT vs. A-TEK GLASS CENTERS; SOUTH VALLEY GLASS, INC.; And STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Leave a Comment / California, San Jose / By Ashish

ADJ584277 (STK0187511) (San Jose District Office) is a case in which the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the Findings, Award & Order of December 16, 2010, rescinded the F&A, and remanded the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ which apportions permanent disability per Labor Code sections 4663/4664 and Benson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535 [74 Cal.Comp.Cases 113], consistent with the Court of Appeal’s opinion.

ROBERT DOI vs. CITY OF TULARE, PSI Administered By MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Leave a Comment / California, Fresno / By Ashish

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and Removal and the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration and Removal of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge. After reviewing the record, the Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration and denied Removal. The decision was dated and filed at San Francisco, California on February 29, 2012 and service was made on the persons listed below at their addresses shown on the current official address record.

Darlyn Piper vs. Danka Office Imaging; Zurich North America; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Leave a Comment / Anaheim, California / By Ashish

and ADJ2211265 (AHM0083473) is a case involving Darlyn Piper, an employee of Danka Office Imaging, who sustained an injury to her shoulders, knees, wrists, and neck while employed as a customer service technician. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied Piper’s Petition for Reconsideration and granted Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s Petition for Reconsideration, amending the Findings and Award to clarify that Zurich North America was responsible for providing Piper’s benefits. The Board also affirmed the WCJ’s decision, noting that Zurich may seek contribution from Liberty Mutual in supplemental proceedings.

February 2012