Corey Murphy vs. Blue Mountain Air & Liberty Mutual Insurance

(SRO 0140946) is a case between Blue Mountain Air and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Corey Murphy, in which Murphy is seeking workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Murphy's petition for reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's decision, except that two findings of fact were struck from the Findings and Award. The Board found that there was no evidence to resolve the issue of whether salary continuation was the legal equivalent of temporary disability, and that the WCJ's award of temporary disability benefits was appropriate.

BLUE MOUNTAIN AIR and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, COREY MURPHY, WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACOREY MURPHY,, Applicant,vs.BLUE MOUNTAIN AIR and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s).CaseNo. ADJ3875296 (SRO 0140946)OPINION AND ORDERGRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTERRECONSIDERATION Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued July 15, 2010, whereinthe workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained anindustrial injury to his “right lower extremity and a staph infection” on February 27, 2007, whileemployed as a sheet metal field worker, resulting in temporary disability at the rate of $958.01.The WCJ also found that “defendant did not commence payment of temporary disability until thisjudge approved stipulations regarding temporary disability on April 16, 2008.” The WCJ further found that “salary continuation is not temporary disability” and that “defendant has provided no written or any formal company policy regarding salary continuation and admits no collective bargaining agreement exists.” Applicant was awarded 104 weeks of temporary disability from the date of commencement “or until applicant has been found permanent and stationary or released to return to his usual and customary work.” Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by merely declaring that “salary continuation is nottemporary disability payment” arguing that defendant’s “salary continuation and/or disability payments” should be deemed the legal equivalent of temporary disability for purposes of calculating the two year cap set forth in Labor Code section 4656. Defendant further contends that”whether the salary continuation was paid pursuant to a formal or written policy should not be , dispositive, so long as the purpose of the payments was the same as TTD.” Applicant filed anAnswer. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein, we will grantreconsideration and

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.