DONNA LARSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Adjusting Agency

In this case, Donna Larson, an accounting supervisor at Pelican Bay State Prison, sought reconsideration of an Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, issued May 11, 2012, which rescinded the Findings and Award and Order, issued February 21, 2012, and returned the matter to the trial level for further clarification of the issue of applicant's claim of cumulative trauma injury to the psyche over the period June 17, 2009 through June 17, 2010. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, citing to its broad power of review which permits it to reopen the entire record to address sua sponte any issue presented for determination at the trial level which it considers relevant to

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Adjusting Agency DONNA LARSON WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADONNA LARSON, Applicant,vs.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Legally Uninsured,STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Adjusting Agency, Defendant.Case No. ADJ7382041(Eureka District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant, Donna Larson, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, issued May 11, 2012, in which we rescinded the Findings and Award and Order, issued February 21, 2012, and returned the matter to the trial level for further clarification of the issue of applicant’s claim of cumulative trauma injury to the psyche over the period June 17, 2009 through June 17, 2010, while employed as an accounting supervisor at Pelican Bay State Prison.            Applicant contends that by rescinding the Findings and Award and Order, the Appeals Board acted without or in excess of its powers. More specifically, applicant asserts that because defendant’s prior petition for reconsideration did not raise the finding of injury to the psyche, but rather, contested the WCJ’s finding with regard to applicant’s claim for benefits under Labor Code section 132a, the Appeals Board “clearly overstepped its role and duties” in addressing the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) finding of injury to the psyche.            Defendant has filed an answer to applicant’s petition, wherein it cites to its contention raised in its prior petition for reconsideration that the WCJ’s Findings and Award and Order should be reversed because it finds applicant’s claim of injury to her psyche to be compensable. In fact, defendant’s entire argument was based upon the assertion that the WCJ’s finding of injury to the psyche was improperly based upon his finding of discrimination under Lab

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.