July, 2013 - CompFox

Michael Weinberg vs. Sutton Agricultural Enterprises; Insurance Company Of The West Pleasanton

Leave a Comment / California, Salinas / By Ashish

This case involves Michael Weinberg, an employee of Sutton Agricultural Enterprises, who claimed to have sustained an industrial injury to his psyche while employed as a welder on May 2, 2011. The Insurance Company of the West Pleasanton sought to deny the claim, arguing that it was barred by the initial physical aggressor defense. The Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge found that the claim was not barred by the initial physical aggressor defense and deferred the issues of whether the claim was barred by Labor Code section 3208.31 and the decision in Verga v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. The Insurance Company of the West Pleasanton sought reconsideration of the decision, but the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the

Ernest Surita vs. Franchise Tax Board; State Compensation Insurance Fund

Leave a Comment / California, Sacramento / By Ashish

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Ernest Surita against the Franchise Tax Board and the State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Board found that Surita was not aggrieved by the order deeming Mastagni et al. to be his attorneys, as he had already dismissed his attorney, Euell McKown, and substituted other counsel. Additionally, the order was not final as it did not determine substantive right or liability.

Amelia Cuevas vs. Imagine Fulfillment Services; Employers Compensation Insurance Company

Leave a Comment / California, Long Beach / By Ashish

(LBO 0378379) In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the April 29, 2013 Order re: Labor Code § 5811 Costs, rescinded the WCJ’s Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ. The WCJ had found that lien claimant California Imaging Solutions had shown good cause for defendant to pay “that which they believe is reasonable, or none at all if they believe they have no liability,” for photocopying services that CIS had provided. The Appeals Board found that medical-legal expenses such as photocopying services are not recoverable under section 5811 and granted the defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration.

Michael Chass vs. Silgan Containers; Ace Insurance, Administered By Esis

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Ashish

In this case, Michael Chass filed a Petition for Reconsideration against Silgan Containers and ACE Insurance, administered by ESIS. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board considered the allegations and the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge. The Board found that the Petition for Reconsideration was untimely and dismissed it. Furthermore, had the petition been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits. The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed on August 1, 2013.

Clemente Castro vs. Eden Rose Farms; State Compensation Insurance Fund

Leave a Comment / California, San Diego / By Ashish

Summarize this case: Clemente Castro filed a workers’ compensation claim against Eden Rose Farms and the State Compensation Insurance Fund alleging that he was injured while employed as a farm laborer on October 25, 2005. Castro attempted to claim all benefits under the Labor Code, including serious and willful misconduct of the employer, but failed to provide adequate notice to the employer that a serious and willful misconduct claim was being made. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, finding that the claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations.

Michael Brooks vs. County Of Sacramento, Permissibly Self-insured

Leave a Comment / California, Sacramento / By Ashish

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the Findings and Award of November 4, 2010, rescinded the decision, and remanded the matter to the trial level for further development of the record and a new decision by the WCJ, consistent with the Court of Appeal’s opinion.

Nhan Nguyen vs. Dmj Spa And Nails, Inc., Dba Dmj Trucking, Danny Cao Doan, My Hoang Thi Trinh, Nghia Cong Trinh

Leave a Comment / California, Santa Ana / By Ashish

(ANA 0386686) is a case involving DMJ Spa and Nails, Inc., dba DMJ Trucking, Danny Cao Doan, My Hoang Thi Trinh, and Nghia Cong Trinh Nhan Nguyen. The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on April 30, 2013, was withdrawn by the petitioner, and the petition was dismissed. The decision was made by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on July 31, 2013.

Jerry Mires vs. Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Permissibly Self-insured

Leave a Comment / California, Redding / By Ashish

(RDG 0067603)In this case, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Department sought reconsideration of a May 7, 2013 Findings and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the lien claim of PHI Air Medical was not barred by the statute of limitation. The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration and instructed the WCJ to set the matter for a hearing with the parties to create a proper record that includes the framing of stipulations and issues, the identification and admission of relevant evidence, and the scanning of that evidence into EAMS. Once the record is complete, the Appeals Board will further study the issues in this case and prepare a Decision After Reconsider

Lee Lujan vs. Home Living Solutions; First Comp

Leave a Comment / California, Riverside / By Ashish

is a case in which Lee Lujan, the applicant, is appealing a decision made by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board of California. The Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Lopez and Associates, a lien claimant copy service. The Board found that the dismissal of the petition was in accordance with the En Banc decision in Luis Martinez, which stated that medical-legal expenses may not be filed as a petition for costs under section 5811 and that medical-legal lien claimants who withdrew their liens and filed petitions for costs prior to the En Banc decision may pursue recovery through the lien process if they comply with the lien activation fee requirement of section 4903.06 and if their liens have not otherwise been

Patricia Eskander vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, Permissibly Self-insured, Administered By Sedgwick Cms

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Ashish

In this case, Patricia Eskander appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board after the Los Angeles Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by Sedgwick CMS denied her claim. The Board denied her petition for reconsideration, affirming the decision of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge and extending to the WCJ’s finding on credibility the great weight to which it is entitled. The Board also noted that it was not clear if the defendant was “judge-shopping” when it filed a Declaration of Readiness (DOR) seeking a “status conference” on its Motion to Strike.

July 2013