Bonnie Mcclintic vs. State Of California, Department Of Motor Vehicles; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

In this case, the State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles, through its adjusting agent, State Compensation Insurance Fund (defendant) sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (FOF) issued in this case on August 12, 2010, wherein a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that Bonnie McClinclic (applicant) while employed by defendant as a motor field representative during the cumulative period between November 1. 1995 and July 14, 2008, did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of her employment to her psyche, low back, neck and jaw. The WCJ denied the petition for reconsideration and the defendant withdrew their petition. The applicant was granted permission to file

State of California, Department Of Motor Vehicles; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Bonnie Mcclintic WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABONNIE MCCLINTIC , Applicant,vs.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND , Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ6991789OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING APPLICANT’S REQUEST TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles, through its adjusting agent, State Compensation Insurance Fund (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (FOF) issued in this case on August 12, 2010, wherein a workers* compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that Bonnie McClinclic (applicant) while employed by defendant as a motor field representative during the cumulative period between November 1. 1995 and July 14, 2008, did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of her employment to her psyche, low back, neck and jaw. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred because the FOF do not address applicant’s claim of injury to her bladder.            Applicant also seeks reconsideration of the August 12. 2010 FOF contending, in substance, that the WCJ erred in finding that she did not sustain an industrial injury as alleged because the evidence she produced was more substantial than the evidence offered by defendant. Applicant further alleges that defendant failed to meet its evidentiary burden of proof and failed to provide , evidence that her claim of psychiatric injury was the result of a non-discriminatory, good faith personnel action.            We have received a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (repot) of the WCJ. Defendant has filed an answer to applicant’s petition for reconsideration. Applicant has made a request under section 1Ü8481 to file a supplemental petition in response to the WCJ’s report. :j She has also reque

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.