Gte Corporation; Chartis Insurance Armando Balderas WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAARMANDO BALDERAS, Applicant,vs.GTE CORPORATION; CHARTIS INSURANCE, Defendant,Case No. ADJ2405891OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CORRECTING CLERICAL ERROR Defendant seeks reconsideration of the April 13, 2010 “Joint Findings and Award,”1 wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is 100% permanently disabled, with no basis for apportionment. The parties had previously stipulated that applicant sustained industrial injury to his right shoulder, left arm, spine, and both upper extremities, while employed as a plant constructioa’installer during the period 1990 through November 2002. (September 18, 2006 Minutes of Hearing, 2:4-6; October 24, 2006 Findings and Award.) Defendant contends as follows: 1) that it was improper for the WCJ to find 100% permanent disability where the evidence demonstrates that the upper back injuries were caused by a 1986 injury, for which applicant received an award, and the left shoulder injury was caused by a separate subsequent cumulative trauma injury; 2) the WCJ had a duty to develop the record on apportionment; 3) the WCJ should have applied apportionment to the 100% disability found pursuant to LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 1 Although the WCJ issued a Joint Findings and Award, and listed two case numbers in the C2ption, only one case was submitted, ADJ2405891 (GRO 0022758). In the Minutes of Hearing (Summary of Evidence) Order Taking Off Calendar Cases ADJ1997763/ADJ226I447, the WCJ expressly said that, “ The matter is submitted only in Case ADJ2405891,” and ordered cases ADJ1997763 (GOL 0086852) and ADJ226I447 (GOL 0088507) off calendar. He confirmed this in lus Repon, at page 1. , 587]; 4) Drr~ Schwartz’s report is not substantial evidence because he does not discuss apportionment to the prior
Menu
