Chava Cohen vs. Sheridan Assisted Living, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund

(MON 0356260) This case involves a petition for reconsideration of an order for defendant to pay a vocational consultant, Judie Fogel, $1,700.00 for medical legal expenses related to the Ogilvie case. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that the testimony provided by Fogel was so deficient as to be incapable of affecting the applicant's permanent disability rating, and therefore, the costs of obtaining that testimony were not recoverable. The Board also noted that even in light of the Court of Appeal's annulment of their decisions in Ogilvie and remand for further proceedings, the testimony was still found to be deficient.

Sheridan Assisted Living, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund Chava Cohen WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACHAVA COHEN, Applicant,vs.SHERIDAN ASSISTED LIVING, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. Case No. ADJ1329489 (MON 0356260) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Vocational consultant Judie Fogel seeks reconsideration of our June 8, 2011 Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, wherein we rescinded the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) February 14, 2011 order for defendant to pay Ms. Fogel $1,700.00, for “medical legal expense for issues relating to the Ogilvie case,” and we found that “because vocational rehabilitation counselor Judie Fogel’s testimony was so deficient as to be incapable of affecting applicant’s permanent disability rating, the costs of obtaining that testimony are not recoverable.            Petitioner contends we erred in rescinding the WCJ’s order, arguing that it was not necessary for her to provide testimony on her calculations regarding applicant’s 100 percent wage loss because applicant already testified credibly as to her wage loss, and that her testimony related not only to the Ogilvie issue (Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 248 (Appeals Board en banc), and Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1127 (Appeals Board en banc)), but also to the issue of average weekly wages, and that we did not find her testimony on that issue deficient.                        We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and defendant’s Answer, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. ,             For the reasons stated in our June 8, 2011 Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, which we incorporate herein, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny petitioner’s petition for reconsideration.          

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.