Diane L. Derosa, vs. Verizon Wireless; Travelers Insurance Company,

(SDO 0278924)This case involves Diane L. DeRosa, who was injured while working as an outside sales executive for Verizon Wireless. She sought reconsideration of the May 15, 2009 "Findings and Award and Orders" issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that she sustained industrial injury to her spine on November 27, 2000. The WCJ further found, as relevant here, that she became permanent and stationary on August 20, 2004, based on the report of Sidney H. Levine, M.D., defendant's Qualified Medical Evaluator, and that there was no substantial evidence concerning permanent disability. The WCJ deferred the issues of permanent disability and apportion

VERIZON WIRELESS; TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, DIANE L. DeROSA, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADIANE L. DeROSA, Applicant,vs.VERIZON WIRELESS; TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ1822810 (SDO 0278924)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 15, 2009 “Findings and Award and Orders” issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to her spine on November 27, 2000 while working as an outside sales executive. The WCJ further found, as relevant here, that applicant became permanent and stationary on August 20, 2004, based on the report of Sidney H. Levine, M.D., defendant’s Qualified Medical Evaluator, and that there was no substantial evidence concerning permanent disability. The WCJ deferred the issues of permanent disability and apportionment, and ordered that the parties further develop the medical record on the issue of permanent disability so that it contains substantial medical evidence on that issue.            In her petition, applicant contends that the WCJ erred in relying on the May 8, 2004 report of Sam Maywood, M.D., to make a determination of applicant’s credibility where the report was admitted into evidence for the limited purpose of addressing treatment through October 1, 2003. Applicant argues that the WCJ’s unexpected reliance on this report for determination outside of the express evidentiary purpose for which it was admitted, constitutes the violation of applicant’s due process rights. Defendant filed an Answer.            Initially, we note that reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code §§ 5900, subd. (a); 5902.) Interlocutory procedural orders are not final orders within , the meaning of Labor Code section 5900. An order which does not dispose of the substantive rights and liabilit

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.