News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

Barbara Bonzo, vs. California Institute Of Technology/jpl; Zurich North America, C/o Specialty Risk Services, Inc.,

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY/JPL; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, C/O SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC., BARBARA BONZO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABARBARA BONZO, Applicant,vs.CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY/JPL; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, C/O SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ3960378 (VNO 0517491)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, Zurich North America, on behalf of its insured, California Institute of Technology/Jet Propulsion Laboratory, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award, issued August 3, 2009, and amended August 10, 2009 to add a life pension, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that as a result of her admitted February 21, 2001 industrial injury to her back, bilateral knees and left foot, applicant, Barbara Bonzo, sustained 76% permanent disability, after apportionment.            Defendant contends the WCJ erred in his apportionment determination, arguing that the opinion of panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Dr. Chandler is substantial medical evidence that supports apportionment of 80% of applicant’s right knee disability to pre-existing pathology. Defendant further contends the WCJ’s finding of permanent disability with regard to applicant’s low back injury is not justified, again citing Dr. Chandler’s opinion. Defendant further argues that the opinion of the panel QME should be deemed controlling, similarly as an opinion of an Agreed Medical Examiner would, if it constitutes substantial evidence. Finally, defendant contends the WCJ erred in excluding the report of Dr. Ainbinder, its defense QME, arguing that it was legally , entitled to obtain a new QME report after applicant became represented and the issue of applicant’s need for medical treatment for her low back arose. Applicant has filed an answer to defendant’s petition.            Following our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm the WCJ

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *