Beth Worden, vs. Harriet Anderson Painting; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

(WCK 0049849) is a case in which Harriet Anderson Painting and the State Compensation Insurance Fund were involved. The applicant, Beth Worden, was an apprentice painter who sustained an industrial injury on December 31, 1996, causing 100% permanent disability. The WCJ found that the defendant had the duty to provide medical care to cure or relieve the applicant's injuries and awarded "reasonable yard work consistent with her request." The defendant filed a petition for reconsideration, claiming that the WCJ erred in finding yard work to be a medical treatment expense. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the First Amended Findings and Award and the May 20, 2009 order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further

HARRIET ANDERSON PAINTING; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, BETH WORDEN, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABETH WORDEN, Applicant,vs.HARRIET ANDERSON PAINTING; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ209637 (WCK 0049849)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            On May 7, 2009 defendant filed a petition for reconsideration of the April 16, 2009 First Amended Findings and Award, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an apprentice painter on December 31, 1996, sustained industrial injury, causing 100 percent permanent disability. The WCJ found that defendant has the duty, formalized in a previous stipulated award, to provide medical care to cure or relieve applicant’s injuries. The WCJ found that applicant’s request for yard work was reasonable and awarded “reasonable yard work consistent with her request.” On May 20, 2009, claiming to act pursuant to Appeals Board Rule 10859 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10859), the WCJ ordered applicant’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 into evidence.1 “[T]o assure procedural correctness,” defendant filed a “Third Petition for Reconsideration,” after the May 20, 2009 order, which was substantially the same as the previous one.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding yard work to be a medical treatment expense, when there is no evidence it cures or relieves applicant’s condition, and that, “regardless 1The WCJ hand-dated his order May 19, 2009. but, as he issued the order at a conference on May 20, 2009, his date appears to be incorrect. , of the foregoing, it is not shown to come under any treatment guideline such as ACOEM.”            We have considered the Petitions for Reconsideration and applicant’s Answers, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending t

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.