Edgardo Herrera vs. Coastal Construction & Lumber co., Inc.; Zenith Insurance Company

This case involves a dispute between Edgardo Herrera, the applicant, and Coastal Construction & Lumber Co., Inc. and Zenith Insurance Company, the defendants. Herrera claims to have incurred an industrial injury while working as a fence installer for the defendant on January 15, 2007. The defendant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to Expedited Hearing listing the issue in dispute as defendant's liability for treatment obtained by applicant outside the defendant's Medical Provider Network. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge issued a minute order on June 1, 2010, which stated that defendant was not liable for the cost of any treatment self-procured by applicant and that all reports from providers of any such self-procured treatment were inadmissible. The applicant petition

Coastal Construction & Lumber Co., Inc.; Zenith Insurance Company Edgardo Herrera WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEDGARDO HERRERA, Applicant,vs.COASTAL CONSTRUCTION & LUMBER CO., INC.; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3271284OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REMOVAL, GRANT OF RECONSIDERATION ON MOTION OF THE APPEALS BOARD, AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant petitioned for removal of this case to the Appeals Board following the June 1, 2010 minute order of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). who handwrote an order in connection with an expedited hearing, in pertinent part as follows: “Defendant is not liable for applicant’s self-procured medical costs, including but not limited to those from NMCI Medical / Clinics (Dr. NoralchiJ and Chiropractor Rhodcs-Jacobs. and the reports from those treatments are inadmissible.” Applicant claims to have incurred industrial injury on January 15, 2007. while working as a fence installer for defendant.            Applicant contends that the issues of defendant’s liability for treatment òosts and the admissibility of certain medical reports were not proper subjects for an expedited hearing, and that because some parties affected by the order were not given proper notice before it issued there was a deprivation of due process.            An answer was received. A Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal was not received from the WCJ.            We dismiss the petition for removal because the WCJ finally decided a substantive issue , and il should have been addressed by a pcliiion for reconsiderai ion instead of removal. However, in lhe interests of justice we grant reconsideration on our own motion, and as our decision after reconsideration wc rescind the June 1. 2010 minute order. Not all of the lien claimants affected by the order were served with notice of the trial that led to its issuance, which raises a due process concern. In ad

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.