Nordstrom, Permissibly Self-Insured And Self-Administered, Edith Martin, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEDITH MARTIN,Applicant,vs.NORDSTROM, permissibly self-insured and self-administered,Defendant.Case No. ADJ7849950(Long Beach District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto, and the contents of the WCJ’s Opinion on Decision. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report and opinion, which are both adopted and incorporated herein, we will deny reconsideration. In addition, pursuant to our authority under Appeals Board Rule 10848, we accept applicant’s supplemental pleading consisting of a “Petition For: Reply to Defendant’s Answer to Petition for Reconsideration.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848.) However, we advise applicant that Appeals Board rule 10848 requires that a party request permission to file supplemental pleadings before doing so. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848.)///////////////////// , For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD _______________________________ KATHERINE ZALEWSKII CONCUR,_______________________________CRISTINE E. GONDAKCONCURRING, BUT NOT SIGNING_______________________________RICHARD L. NEWMANDATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAMAY 22 2017SERVICE MADE ON ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES AS SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD:EDITH MARTINMARY J. ORBAN, ESQPAG:acw , STATE OF CALIFORNIADivision of Workers’ CompensationWorkers’ Compensation Appeals BoardCASE NUMBER: ADJ7849950(Long Beach District Office)EDITH MARTIN -vs.- NORDSTROM; NORDSTROM SANTA ANA;WORKERS’ COMP
Edith Martin, vs. Nordstrom, Permissibly Self-Insured And Self-Administered,
is a case in which Edith Martin, an employee of Nordstrom, filed a petition for reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied her petition to reopen her case. Martin argued that the medical evidence she presented constituted a petition to reopen, that the conduct of Nordstrom's claims examiner induced her to refrain from filing a petition to reopen, and that she was mentally incompetent to file a timely petition to reopen. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that the medical evidence did not constitute a petition to reopen, that the claims examiner did not induce Martin to refrain from filing a petition to reopen, and that there was not enough evidence to support Martin's claim of mental incompetence.
- Filed On:
- Court: California, Long Beach
- Case No. ADJ7849950
To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days
Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!
Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.