September 19, 2011

Travis Wolf vs. Yellow Roadway Corporation, Old Republic Insurance C/o Gallagher Bassett Services, Incorporated

In this case, Travis Wolf sought workers’ compensation from Yellow Roadway Corporation and Old Republic Insurance C/O Gallagher Bassett Services, Incorporated. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for reconsideration filed by R. Fruge and Associates on behalf of Tri-City Regional Medical Center in order to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in the case.

Maximino Ultreras vs. Cottage Health Systems, Permissibly Self-insured, Adjusted By Keenan & Assoc.

In this case, Maximino Ultreras was seeking workers’ compensation from Cottage Health Systems, which was permissibly self-insured and adjusted by Keenan & Assoc. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant’s Petition for Removal and granted the Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the portion of the Order finding injury AOE/COE and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. The Board found that the defendant had not established that it would suffer significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, and that there was not substantial medical evidence to support a finding of cumulative injury.

Neyffi Noriega vs. C & D Zodiac And Travelers Insurance

, C & D Zodiac and Travelers Insurance sought removal and reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award of June 28, 2011, in which the workers’ compensation judge found that the applicant was in need of psychiatric medical treatment. The Petition for Removal was dismissed, and reconsideration was granted. The decision was rescinded and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ, which should include findings that the applicant is not entitled to further psychiatric treatment in two of the cases.

Maurice Montgomery vs. Dirt Movers; State Compensation Insurance Fund

(RDG 0099452)

In this case, Maurice Montgomery is seeking workers’ compensation from Dirt Movers and the State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration in order to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in the case and issue a just and reasoned decision. All further correspondence, objections, motions, requests and communications must be filed with the Office of the Commissioners of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

Gloria Miramontes vs. Linda Dabbs; State Farm Insurance Company

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Linda Dabbs and State Farm Insurance Company. The Board granted the petition in order to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in the case and to enable them to issue a just and reasoned decision. All further correspondence, objections, motions, requests and communications were to be filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in San Francisco.

Rafael Lorea vs. Compu-aire Inc; Oak River Insurance Company

In this case, Rafael Lorea, an employee of Compu-Aire Inc., sought workers’ compensation for a cumulative trauma injury to his bilateral knees. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the Amended Findings and Award, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new final decision. The Board found that while Lorea had established an industrial cumulative trauma injury, it was necessary to avoid bifurcation in the matter and return it to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Martin Rojero Longoria vs. Micro Solutions; Icw Explorer Insurance

, Martin Rojero Longoria filed a petition for reconsideration with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board regarding attorney fees and his claim for a specific back injury on July 13, 2005 and a continuous trauma claim for employment from December 2004 through September 15, 2006. The WCJ found that the petition was untimely as to the specific back injury and moot as to the continuous trauma claim, and dismissed the petition.

Charles Jones vs. California Charter Academy; State Compensation Insurance Fund

(RIV 0061323) is a case in which Charles Jones sought reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release, issued March 14, 2011, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge approved the resolution of Jones’ claim for $50,000. Jones argued that the terms of the Compromise and Release were defective because it precluded him from receiving benefits for his claimed neck, back and right shoulder injuries. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as it was untimely.

Laura Huesca vs. Los Angeles County

In this case, lien claimant Edwin Haronian, M.D. sought reconsideration of an order that had not yet been issued. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because there was no final order to reconsider. The WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien, giving notice that the lien would be dismissed unless good cause to the contrary was shown in writing within 10 days. The Petition for Reconsideration was filed beyond the 10 days specified in the Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien. No order regarding petitioner’s lien has issued and petitioner is not presently aggrieved. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Marjorie Ferrer vs. Washington Mutual, Countrywide Financial; Specialty Risk; Ace

: This case involves Marjorie Ferrer, an employee of Washington Mutual and Countrywide Financial, who suffered a stroke while at work. Ferrer claimed that the stress of her job caused her blood pressure to rise, which in turn caused the aneurysm to rupture and result in the stroke. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and ordered further development of the medical record. The Board found that the WCJ’s analysis of stress and causation was incorrect and that the reports of the two partisan physicians were inadmissible and insubstantial. The Board ordered the parties to agree on an AME or, if they could