ANDRE WILLIAMS vs. CITY OF FRESNO, Self-insured; AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

In this case, the City of Fresno, self-insured, and its adjusting agent, American All Risk Loss Administrators, sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge. The judge found that the applicant, Andre Williams, sustained industrial injury to his psyche during the period of cumulative trauma ending November 3, 2008, and that he was not claiming any permanent disability or need for further medical treatment. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration in order to amend the Findings of Fact and Award to defer the issues of applicant's permanent and stationary date, permanent disability, and need for further medical treatment, otherwise affirmed the Findings of Fact and Award, and returned the matter to the

CITY OF FRESNO, self-insured; AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS ANDRE WILLIAMS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAANDRE WILLIAMS, Applicant,vs.CITY OF FRESNO, self-insured; AMERICAN ALL RISKLOSS ADMINISTRATORS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ6624824 (Fresno District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant City of Fresno, self-insured, and its adjusting agent, American All Risk Loss Administrators, (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued in this case by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 9, 2012. In that F&A, the WCJ found that: (1) applicant Andre Williams (applicant) sustained industrial injury to his psyche during the period of cumulative trauma ending November 3, 2008; (2) the report and opinion of the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) was substantial evidence; (3) applicant’s claim was not barred by Labor Code1 section 3208.3, subdivision (h); (4) applicant met the standard/burden of proof set forth in Section 3208.3, subdivision (b)(1); (5) applicant was permanent and stationary on April 23, 2009 as found by the PQME and his treating physician; (6) applicant did not sustain any permanent disability as opined by the PQME and the parties’ stipulation; (7) applicant was not in need of further medical treatment as opined by the PQME and the parties’ stipulation; (8) defendant was to adjust the billings of applicant’s treating physician and applicant’s claim for medical treatment mileage; (9) applicant was entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits up to the time he began drawing unemployment benefits; (10) defendant was not liable for penalties for unreasonable delay in paying temporary disability indemnity; and, (11) applicant’s average weekly earnings were based on his last year of earnings. 1 All statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise stated. ,             Defendant

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.