Alfredo Munoz, vs. Borg Produce And Clarendon National Insurance Company,

Alfredo Munoz was injured at work on October 1, 2002 and sustained permanent disability of 65% after apportionment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the Findings Award and Order issued July 27, 2009, and rescinded the findings on permanent disability, apportionment and attorney fees, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision.

BORG PRODUCE and CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ALFREDO MUNOZ, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAALFREDO MUNOZ, Applicant,vs.BORG PRODUCE and CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ134752 (LAO 0818494)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISIONAFTER RECONSIDERATION            Clarendon National Insurance Company (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings Award and Order issued July 27, 2009, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant sustained permanent disability of 65% after apportionment as the result of an industrial injury to his low back and psyche on October 1, 2002.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in that the rating instructions upon which the finding of permanent disability was ultimately based erroneously misstate the factors of disability as described by the agreed medical evaluator (AME). Additionally, defendant contends that the WCJ erred by apportioning only 10% to non-industrial causes when the AME opined, instead, that 25% of applicant’s permanent disability is due to preexisting nonindustrial factors.            At the outset, we note that the WCJ has filed a detailed Report and Recommendation on the Petition for Reconsideration (Report), in which he acknowledges a lack of clarity with regard to the AME’s deposition testimony and subsequent narrative report concerning applicant’s work restrictions and apportionment. Although the WCJ expresses confidence in the finding of apportionment, he suggests that reconsideration be granted and the case remanded to the trial level to further develop the record on apportionment in the event that we find the AME’s deposition testimony unclear.            We have considered the allegations and arguments of the Petition for Reconsideration, the , WCJ’s Report, the record in this matter and the answer filed by applicant. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons dis

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.