Edward Vera vs. Gulfstream Aerospace/General Dynamics; AIG Administered By Broadspire

This case involves a dispute between Edward Vera, an installer, and Gulfstream Aerospace/General Dynamics; AIG administered by Broadspire. Vera sought reconsideration of a Findings, Award and Order issued October 31, 2007, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge found that Vera sustained an industrial bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome injury on June 29, 2004, while employed as an installer, resulting in the need for further medical treatment. The WCJ deferred findings regarding Vera's permanent disability rating pending receipt of additional medical opinion evidence. The WCJ also deferred making the admissibility determination concerning a medical report until such time as the trial court receives a final permanent and stationary report. Vera's Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed and his Petition for

Gulfstream Aerospace/General Dynamics; AIG administered by Broadspire Edward Vera WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEDWARD VERA, Applicantvs.GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE/GENERALDYNAMICS; AIG administered byBROADSPIRE, Defendant(s)Case No.            ANA 390998OPINION AND ORDERSDISMISSING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION ANDDENYING PETITIONFOR REMOVAL            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order issued October 31, 2007, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained an industrial bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome injury on June 29, 2004, while employed as an    installer, resulting in the need for further medical treatment “as previously advised by Dr. Bos in    her January 8, 2006 report”. The WCJ specifically deferred findings regarding applicant’s permanent disability rating pending receipt of additional medical opinion evidence. The WCJ also deferred “making the admissibility determination concerning Dr. Cook’s April 10, 2006 report until such time as the trial court receives Dr. Bos’ final permanent and stationary report.” The WCJ ordered that the admissibility of other documentary evidence “such as applicant’s Exhibits 2-5, 7- 10 and defense Exhibits C-1, C-2, E, and F, and the admissibility of Ms. Rogers’ testimonial    evidence, will be determined at a subsequent date, which will necessarily be subsequent to the date when the trial court receives Dr. Bos’ final permanent and stationary report.” Applicant was    ordered to “submit himself to a final permanent and stationary evaluation with Dr. Bos.”            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred: (1) by failing to recognize applicant’s election of a new “primary treating doctor” Michael Einbund, M.D., whose opinion should be relied upon in the place of Dr. Bos; and (2) by failing to admit the medical reports of Dr. Einbund into the evidentiary , record regarding “applicant’s current need for medical treatment, tempor

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.