Andrew Condrack vs. Banning Unified School District, Permissibly Self-insured, Administered By Keenan & Associates

In this case, Andrew Condrack, an applicant, is suing the Banning Unified School District, which is permissibly self-insured and administered by Keenan & Associates, for workers' compensation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and gave them fifteen days to either withdraw the petition or show good cause why the October 21, 2014 decision should not be affirmed. The defendant argued that the utilization review decision was timely and that they responded reasonably to a defective request for authorization. The applicant's answer stated that the defendant had resubmitted the request for authorization and that utilization review had authorized the surgery.

Banning Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By Keenan & Associates Andrew Condrack WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIA                ANDREW CONDRACK, Applicant,    vs.    BANNING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured,Administered by KEENAN & ASSOCIATES, Defendants.        Case No. ADJ9194237                    OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION;NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AFFIRM OCTOBER 21, 2014 DECISION Defendant seeks reconsideration of the October 21, 2014 Findings and Award, wherein the    workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)found that applicant sustained an injury arising    out of and in the course of his employment as a custodian with the Banning Unified School District to his    back during the period July 1, 1986 through August 8, 2013. The WCJ also found that defendant did not    perform utilization review of a requested revision back surgery at L3-4 in a timely manner. The WCJ    ordered defendant to authorize the surgery.     Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that its utilization review decision was not    timely, arguing that the utilization review decision wastimely and defendant responded reasonably to a    defective request for authorization.     We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this    matter. We have received an answer from applicant.The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation    on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that reconsideration be denied.     According to applicant’s answer, defendant resubmitted the request for authorization to utilization    review and utilization review has authorized the surgery. Accordingly defendant is not aggrieved by the    WCJ’s decision and should have withdrawn its petition for reconsideration. Therefore, we will grant    reconsideration to provide defendant with an opportunity to either withdraw its petition or show good , cause wh

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.