August, 2014 - CompFox

CYNTHIA MEHAS-WIPF vs. CORNING REVERE FACTORY STORES; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Administered By CHARTIS

Leave a Comment / California, Oxnard / By Ashish

CORNING REVERE FACTORY STORES; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, administered by CHARTIS CYNTHIA MEHAS-WIPF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACYNTHIA MEHAS-WIPF, Applicant,vs.CORNING REVERE FACTORY STORES; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, administered by CHARTIS, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ2560512 (SBA 0086380)ADJ4001757 (GOL 0087273)(Oxnard District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION We granted reconsideration of defendant’s Petition …

CYNTHIA MEHAS-WIPF vs. CORNING REVERE FACTORY STORES; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Administered By CHARTIS Read More »

Alvaro Virgen vs. Costaviewfarm2; Zenith Insurance Company

Leave a Comment / California, Fresno / By Ashish

In this case, Alvaro Virgen was appealing a decision made by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Kyle K. Neilsen, Virgen’s representative, was issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions due to his contemptuous statements about the WCJ. After further review, the Board imposed sanctions of $950.00 on Neilsen, despite his apology. Neilsen was advised to control his frustration in the future.

ELISEO VILLACANA vs. COSTA FARMS, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Leave a Comment / California, Salinas / By Ashish

.docxThis case is about Costa Farms, Inc. and the State Compensation Insurance Fund appealing a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of June 5, 2014, wherein it was found that while employed as a “tractor operator and/or laborer” during a cumulative period ending June 6, 2005, applicant sustained industrial injury to his back and to his gastrointestinal region causing temporary disability “at least from 5/19/06 through 10/27/06,” permanent total (100%) disability, and the need for further medical treatment. The WCJ erred in amending the date and nature of the injury from a specific October 23, 2004 injury to a cumulative injury ending on June 6,

Stacy Saunders vs. Loma Linda University Medica Group, Permissibly Self-insured

Leave a Comment / California, San Bernardino / By Ashish

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Loma Linda University Medical Group, Permissibly Self-Insured, 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 were to be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

OMAR ROSAS vs. LAURENCE-HOVENIER, INC.; CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS’ 8 NETWORK Administered By AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

Leave a Comment / Anaheim, California / By Ashish

is a case in which lien claimant Tayde Perez petitioned for reconsideration of the disallowance of her lien for home health care services rendered to her son, Omar Rosas, who sustained severe injuries in a workplace accident in 2005. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that there was no medical evidence to support the need for the home health care services and that the defendant had not received a prescription for the services prior to 2013, as required by Labor Code section 4600(h).

Alfonso Rodriguez vs. Conco Cement Company; Zurich American Insurance

Leave a Comment / California, Los Angeles / By Ashish

In this case, Alfonso Rodriguez sought reconsideration of a decision filed on June 6, 2014. 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 in writing with the Office of the Commissioners of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

Ronald Flores Oporto vs. The Print Lab; And The Hartford

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Ashish

This case involves Ronald Flores Oporto, who filed a Petition for Reconsideration against The Print Lab and The Hartford. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, extending to the WCJ’s finding on credibility the great weight to which it is entitled. The Petition for Reconsideration was denied on August 29, 2014.

Shannon Murphy vs. Oakland Unified School District; Jt2 Integrated,

Leave a Comment / California, Oakland / By Ashish

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Shannon Murphy against Oakland Unified School District and T2 Integrated as untimely. The Award had been issued on September 23, 2005, but the Petition for Reconsideration was not filed within 25 days of the decision, as required by Labor Code section 5903 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. The Petition for Reconsideration was therefore dismissed.

Prudencio Martinez vs. Tetra Tech, Inc.; Insurance . 8 Company Of The State Of Pa

Leave a Comment / California, Santa Ana / By Ashish

In this case, Prudencio Martinez was awarded a settlement of $110,000.00 for his workers’ compensation claim, with an attorney’s fee of $16,000.00. Brent M. Thompson, Esq., the applicant’s prior attorney, sought reconsideration of the June 11, 2014 Order Approving Compromise and Release, arguing that he was not provided with reasonable fees for legal services. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, stating that the June 19, 2014 stipulation signed by counsel for applicant and defendant merely provided that payment would be issued to Lombardi & Perry and that the firm is obligated to hold harmless and indemnify defendants against the lien for attorney fees filed by

ROBERT KARWOWSKI vs. COMMUNITY SYSTEMS CORPORATION; ST ATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Leave a Comment / California, Oakland / By Ashish

is a case in which the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the April 25, 2014 Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues. The Board ultimately affirmed their prior decision, finding that the applicant sustained 80% permanent disability as a result of his industrial injury. The Commissioner dissented, arguing that the applicant should have been found to be 100% permanently totally disabled.

August 2014