Lam Research Corp.; Matrix San Jose Balgovind Sharma WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABALGOVIND SHARMA, Applicant,vs.LAM RESEARCH CORP.; MATRIX SAN JOSE, Defendant.Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION On April 14, 2010. we granted applicant’s petition, construed as a petition for reconsideration, in order to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our decision after reconsideration. Applicant, while employed as a chemical engineer on April 28. 2006, sustained an industrial injury to his head and claims to have sustained injury to his neck, shoulders, pack, psyche, brain and ncuropsyche. On August 4, 2009, at an expedited hearing,1 he entered into the following stipulation with defendant: “Defendant agrees to issue written authorization to providers listed on attachment A. for treatment as set forth, within ten (10) days. All other issues are speciffic]ally reserved and remain as before.” The providers listed on attachment A had made treatment requests between January 19, 2009. and July 10, 2009. The stipulation was approved by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on the same date. On August 17, 2009, applicant tiled a Petition for Penalty for Unreasonable Delay in Providing Medical Care. He claimed sixteen separate penalties for delay in authorizing treatment requests from medical providers. All of the treatment requests were made prior to August 4. 2009, the date of the stipulation. After trial on January 26, 2010. the WCJ issued a Findings and Order 1 Labor Code section 5502(b). Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Labor Code. , dated February 17, 2010, finding that applicant had not expressly reserved the issue of penalties in the stipulation of August 4, 2009, and denying applicant’s petition for penalties. Applicant filed a timely petition for removal, whi
Menu
