Donald Griebling vs. City Of Antioch: Workers' Compensation Case

(OAK 0345843) is a case in which Donald Griebling, the applicant, sought reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 9, 2009. The OACR approved the parties' C&R on all issues, including whether applicant sustained an industrial injury, in the amount of $5,000.00. The WCJ granted reconsideration and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a decision by the WCJ on the issue of whether applicant has shown good cause to set aside the April 9, 2009 OACR.

CITY OF ANTIOCH, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By MUNICIPAL POOLING AUTHORITY, DONALD GRIEBLING, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADONALD GRIEBLING, Applicant,vs.CITY OF ANTIOCH, Permissibly Self- Insured, Adjusted By MUNICIPAL POOLING AUTHORITY, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ1856368 (OAK 0345843)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 9, 2009, wherein the WCJ approved the parties’ C&R on all issues, including whether applicant sustained an industrial injury, in the amount of $5,000.00. Applicant alleged cumulative industrial injury from July 9, 1990 through March 31, 2008, to his nervous system (842), digestive system (810), head (100) and unclassified body parts (999), which was described as injury to applicant’s “psyche and compensable consequences, including but not limited to gastrointestinal injury, sexual side effects, sleep disturbances, somnolence, and headaches” while working as the chief building official. (C&R, p. 3.)            Applicant contends that he was informed and believed that he would be eligible for a full retirement and medical, but learned after the C&R was approved that he was not eligible for retirement medical. Applicant further contends that defendant knew or should have known of applicant’s ineligibility and failed to disclose that fact to applicant. Applicant requests that the OACR be set aside. Defendant filed an Answer.            We have considered the allegations of applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, defendant’s Answer, and the contents of the record, including the WCJ’s Report and , Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report). Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons herein as well as for those stated by the WCJ in his Report, we will grant 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.