Eduardo Vilches Cabrera, vs. Town Of Scotia Co. Pacific Lumber, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By Tristar Risk Management,

In this case, Eduardo Vilches Cabrera was injured on the job in 2006 and was granted a Stipulations and Award in 2014. In 2015, an MRI revealed a material change in his condition and a second surgery was authorized. The Town of Scotia Co. Pacific Lumber, permissibly self-insured, administered by Tristar Risk Management, sought to take a deposition from Cabrera to determine if a new injury caused the material changes in his right knee that necessitated the surgery and to identify potential sources of reimbursement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Removal and rescinded the Order, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Town Of Scotia Co. Pacific Lumber, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By Tristar Risk Management, Eduardo Vilches Cabrera, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEDUARDO VILCHES CABRERA,Applicant,vs.TOWN OF SCOTIA CO. PACIFIC LUMBER, permissibly self-insured, administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT,Defendants.Case No. ADJ8750265(Eureka District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Defendant seeks removal of the Second Order Denying Petition to Compel issued on July 11, 2016 (Order) by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (“WCJ’). The WCJ denied defendant’s Second Petition to Compel applicant’s attendance at a deposition. The WCJ found that the case in chief was resolved on May 14, 2014 by way of Stipulations and Award (“S&A”) based on the November 13, 2013 report of Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (““QME”) Glynn E. Garland, M.D. (S&A, p. 71), and thus, given the recent resolution of this case, defendant fails to state good cause for a speculative discovery procedure.            Defendant contends that although it authorized a second surgery on applicant’s right knee on August 11, 2015 based on a November 28, 2014 MRI which revealed “a material change in the medical condition of applicant’s right knee,” it did not waive its right to conduct discovery to determine whether a new injury caused the “material changes” in applicant’s right knee that necessitated the surgery and to identify potential sources of reimbursement.            Applicant did not file an answer. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) wherein she recommends that the Petition for Removal be denied because the QME reported on November 18, 2013, i.e., seven years after applicant’s industrial injury, that he considered the 1 The November 13, 2013 report of QME Dr. Garland is part of the electronic adjudicatory record. , possible involvement of subsequent employment but found that

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.