Clifford Gamble vs. United Airlines; Gallagher Bassett Services, Et Al.,

; AHM0075910In this case, the Appeals Board dismissed the untimely filed petition for reconsideration from United Airlines, which sought clarification of the Board's decision after remittitur of April 30, 2007. The Board found that the petition was not filed in bad faith or frivolous, and that there was reasonable justification for filing the petition. The Board also noted that defendant may seek modification at the trial level due to a change in circumstances, such as the passage of time, and excluding liability for any periods when applicant may have interrupted services after the issuance of the July 19, 2004 decision, or for any period beyond that allowed by statute.

United Airlines; Gallagher Bassett Services, Et Al., Clifford Gamble WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACLIFFORD GAMBLE, Applicant,vs.UNITED AIRLINES; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, ET AL., Defendants).Case Nos. AHM 0077308; AHM0075910OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            In an untimely filed petition, defendant, United Airlines, seeks reconsideration and requests clarification of the Appeals Board’s Decision After Remittitur of April 30, 2007, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ’s) July 19, 2004 decision was reinstated and it was found, inter alia, that any retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) that might otherwise be due and payable for the period December 4, 2000 until January 25.            2001 is not the liability of defendant; that defendant is not entitled to off set its VRMA liability to applicant, by claiming a credit against applicant’s salary in his concurring employment; and that applicant is a qualified injured worker and entitled to VRMA benefits and services from January 26, 2001 to the present and continuing.            Defendant contends that between the findings and order of the worker’s compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued July 19, 2004, and the Appeals Board’s findings and order of April 30, 2007, defendant provided applicant rehabilitation services which the applicant interrupted on December 8, 2004. Defendant argues that the “present and a continuing” language in the Appeals Board’s decision of April 30, 2007, reinstating the 2004 findings and order, could be read to imply that defendant has liability for VRMA to applicant even during a period when applicant interrupted his rehabilitation services, which would be beyond the statutory scheme. , ‘Defendant requests that the Appeals Board modify its findings and order of April 30, 2007 to indicate that applicant is entitled to VRMA benefits and services from January 26, 2001

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.