Home/Case Law/MIGUEL SOTO vs. PIZZA HUT / YUM! BRANDS; ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CORONA
Regular DecisionReconsideration

MIGUEL SOTO vs. PIZZA HUT / YUM! BRANDS; ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CORONA

Filed: Feb 25, 2011
ADJ2900532 (LAO 0867800)

CompFox AI Summary

The Appeals Board vacated the prior award and remanded the case for a new decision on the application of Labor Code sections 4658(d)(2) and (d)(3)(A). The Board clarified that the 60-day period for offering modified work begins when the employer receives notice that the employee's disability is permanent and stationary, not from the physician's opined date. The Board also noted that the employer's offer must be in the form and manner prescribed by the administrative director, raising a question about the validity of an offer lacking a preparer's signature. Finally, the Board affirmed the substantiality of the medical evidence used by the trial judge and instructed the judge to correct a clerical error in attorney's fees.

MIGUEL SOTO vs. PIZZA HUT / YUM! BRANDS; ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CORONA is a workers' compensation case decided in . This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.

It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in .

Full Decision Text1 Pages

The Appeals Board vacated the prior award and remanded the case for a new decision on the application of Labor Code sections 4658(d)(2) and (d)(3)(A). The Board clarified that the 60-day period for offering modified work begins when the employer receives notice that the employee's disability is permanent and stationary, not from the physician's opined date. The Board also noted that the employer's offer must be in the form and manner prescribed by the administrative director, raising a question about the validity of an offer lacking a preparer's signature. Finally, the Board affirmed the substantiality of the medical evidence used by the trial judge and instructed the judge to correct a clerical error in attorney's fees.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

MIGUEL SOTO vs. PIZZA HUT / YUM! BRANDS; ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CORONA workers compensation case in . Legal case summary, ruling, and analysis for attorneys and legal research.

MIGUEL SOTO vs. PIZZA HUT / YUM! BRANDS; ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CORONA case law summary from . Workers compensation legal decision, case analysis, and court ruling details.

MIGUEL SOTO vs. PIZZA HUT / YUM! BRANDS; ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CORONA Case Analysis

MIGUEL SOTO vs. PIZZA HUT / YUM! BRANDS; ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CORONA is a legal case related to workers' compensation in . This case explains important rulings, legal interpretations, and claim decisions.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.