Sharp Healthcare; Ace American Insurance Company Barrett Patin WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABARRETT PATIN, Applicant,vs.SHARP HEALTHCARE; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ11304564OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers* compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 24, 2019. In the Findings, the WCJ determined in relevant part that applicant sustained an injury to his right knee while employed as a telecom technician by defendant through January 8, 2015 (ADJ11304564) and that applicant sustained an injury to his left foot through Janilary 10, 2017 (ADJ11304561 >) while employed by defendant as a telecom technician device deployment tech/computer installer. The WCJ further determined that the statute of limitations did not bar either of applicant’s injuries. Defendant contends that the statute of limitations bars applicant’s proceedings for compensation. In support thereof, defendant argues that the WCJ’s statements regarding applicant’s date of injury are not supported by substantial evidence. We received an Answer and a First Amended Answer2 from applicant. The WCJ prepared a 1 On July 8, 2019, the WCJ consolidated ADJ11304564 and ADJ11304561.2 We will not consider applicant’s original Answer because the Electronic Adjudication System (EAMS) contains a December 5, 2019 statement written by the WCJ stating that applicant did not intend to file his original Answer and that defendant had no objection to the filing of the First Amended Answer. However, WCAB Rule 10964 states that a party seeking to file a supplemental pleading “shall file a petition setting forth good cause for the Appeals Board to approve the filing of a supplemental pleading and shall attach the proposed pleading ” (Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 8. former 10848. now § 10964 [eff. Jan I, 2020).) Applicant is reminded t
Menu
