News and Insights

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

Barbara Edwards vs. Caltrans; State Compensation Insurance Fund

Caltrans; State Compensation Insurance Fund Barbara Edwards WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABARBARA EDWARDS, Applicant,vs.CALTRANS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ3699701 (GRO 0033759)ADJ624834 (GRO 0033758)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 14, 2011 Joint Findings and Award and the August 2, 2011 Amended Joint Findings and Award, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to 100 percent permanent disability; that the motion to strike the rating is denied; that applicant is in need of future medical care for psyche, cognitive impairment, and headaches; that defendant is entitled to credit for overpayment in both cases; that there is 15 percent apportionment in case number ADJ3699701; and that applicant is entitled to a permanent disability award of 88 percent in ADJ3699701. The WCJ awarded permanent disability indemnity, future medical care, and attorney’s fees. The parties stipulated in their December 6, 2010 pre-trial conference statement that applicant, while employed as a highway maintenance lead worker, sustained industrial injury to her head, neck, brain, and psyche on August 22, 2005, and to her left ankle on October 1, 2002.            Applicant contends the WCJ erred in finding only 88 percent permanent disability in ADJ3699701, arguing that applicant has a presumptive permanent total disability because of an “incurable mental incapacity” under Labor Code section 4662(d)1 or, alternatively, that she should be found to have permanent total disability “in accordance with the fact,” pursuant to the last sentence of section 4662. Applicant further contends that presumptive permanent total disability is not subject to 1            All further statutory references are to the Labor Code. , apportionment, that the WCJ erred in apportioning under section 4663 to


Get exclusive access to in-debt interviews.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

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