February, 2021 - CompFox

Lynn McGlothen vs. KELLEHER LUMBAR CORPORATION; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

Leave a Comment / California, Oakland / By Ashish

KELLEHER LUMBAR CORPORATION; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST Lynn McGlothen WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALYNN MCGLOTHEN, Applicantvs.KELLEHER LUMBAR CORPORATION;INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, Defendants. In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant’s Petition for Removal of the Order Denying Emergency Petition to Stay PQME Evaluation issued by the WCJ on December 8, 2020. The Order was rescinded and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Terry Beasley vs. Self-insured; Administered By Corvel Corporation

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

is a case involving Terry Beasley and Recology San Francisco Recycle Central, a self-insured company administered by Corvel Corporation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration/Removal as the decision included a finding regarding employment, a threshold issue, and the petitioner was only challenging the WCJ’s decision regarding what documents can be sent to a panel qualified medical examiner. Removal was denied as the petitioner did not demonstrate that significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

Joann Studebaker vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Ashish

is a case involving Joann Studebaker, the widow of Kendall Studebaker, who filed a workers’ compensation claim for her deceased husband’s cumulative trauma resulting in cancer. The County of Los Angeles filed a Petition for Removal, claiming that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board should grant removal due to substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issued.

Juan Santiago vs. WEST STAR NORTH DAIRY; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

Leave a Comment / California, Fresno / By Ashish

In this case, Juan Santiago was awarded $9,537.14 in permanent disability advances from West Star North Dairy and Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies. The companies failed to secure a credit of the PDAs in the Compromise and Release (C&R) that was approved on August 12, 2019. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the companies’ petition for reconsideration, finding that the C&R did not provide for the deduction of PDAs and that the companies had no legal basis for unilaterally asserting a credit. The Board also found that the companies were subject to a 25% penalty pursuant to Labor Code section 5814 and interest pursuant to section 5800 on the unpaid amount.

Colleen Sass vs. ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES; LWP CLAIMS; NEW YORK MARINE And GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Leave a Comment / California, Salinas / By Ashish

ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES; LWP CLAIMS; NEW YORK MARINE and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Colleen Sass WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACOLLEEN SASS, Applicantvs.ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES;LWP CLAIMS; NEW YORK MARINE and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DefendantsAdjudication Number: ADJ11416708Salinas District OfficeOPINION AND ORDERGRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Defendant seeks reconsideration/removal of the November 17, 2020 Findings and …

Colleen Sass vs. ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES; LWP CLAIMS; NEW YORK MARINE And GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Read More »

Sharon Angell vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Leave a Comment / California, Oxnard / By Ashish

SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND Sharon Angell WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASHARON ANGELL, Applicantvs.SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITSTRUST FUND, DefendantsAdjudication Numbers: ADJ4145263 (VEN0120366)ADJ2903274 (OXN0124883)Oxnard District OfficeOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL Applicant seeks removal of the “Order to Applicant to Produce Documentation of Social Security Disability (SSD) Payments, Enforcing SIBTF’s Notice to …

Sharon Angell vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND Read More »

Korey Rivota vs. NATIONAL CEMENT COMPANY, INC.; ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

Leave a Comment / California, Van Nuys / By Ashish

. This case is about Korey Rivota, an employee of National Cement Company, Inc., who sustained injuries to his head, brain, nose, eyes, ears, mouth, cervical spine, lumbar spine, both shoulders, both lower extremities, ribs, lungs, internal system, psychiatric system, urological system, endocrine system, and cardiovascular system while on the job. Rivota requested further medical treatment in the form of continued interdisciplinary post-acute residential rehabilitation at the Casa Colina’s Transitional Living Center, which was denied by the Defendant’s utilization review. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Defendant’s petition for reconsideration, finding that the Defendant’s

Aaron Galendez vs. DONOR NETWORK WEST And BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INS., Adjusted By BHHC

Leave a Comment / California, San Francisco / By Ashish

is a case involving Aaron Galendez, the applicant, and Donor Network West and Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins., adjusted by BHHC, the defendants. The defendant sought removal to the Appeals Board following the December 3, 2020 Order Denying Petition for Additional Panel issued in response to the defendant’s October 29, 2020 Petition for Psychiatric Panel of Medical Evaluators. The defendant argued that the order issued in error and that they should have been granted an additional QME Panel in psychiatry. The applicant argued that the relief requested under Labor Code section 3209.3(c) was discretionary and that the defendant had not provided an explanation of their demand for a psychiatric QME panel. The removal was denied as the defendant had not provided an explanation

Jose Juan Barajas Contreras vs. SABOR FARMS; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Leave a Comment / California, Salinas / By Ashish

This case involves a dispute between Jose Juan Barajas Contreras, the applicant, and Sabor Farms and Zurich American Insurance Company, the defendants. The applicant alleged that he sustained an industrial injury to his neck while employed as a seasonal tractor driver on May 14, 2017. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the applicant’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations and that he had sustained a specific injury despite the fact that he had alleged a cumulative injury in his Application for Adjudication of Claim. The Board denied the defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration and found that the defendant had failed to prove that the statute of limitations had begun to run and that the applicant had obtained actual knowledge of his workers’ compensation rights.

February 2021