Efrain Cazares vs. Consolidated Disposal Service; Ace Usa

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration and denied the Petition for Removal. The Board found that the issue of whether or not the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his psyche requires proof by substantial medical evidence, and neither of the medical opinions provided met the test. The Board determined that there was no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant in having the issue revisited by an AME or a "regular physician" chosen by the WCJ.

Consolidated Disposal Service; ACE USA Efrain Cazares WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEFRAIN CAZARES, Applicant,vs.CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE; ACE USA, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ1097789 (VNO 0485505) ADJ3324551 (VNO 0549173)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Applicant seeks reconsideration of this Appeals Board’s Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration of June 20, 2011, in which we granted defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award, Order to Develop the Record, and Notice of Conference issued by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) on March 30, 2011, and we rescinded the WCJ’s decision and returned this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and new decision.            Applicant contends, in substance, that the Board should have affirmed the WCJ’s finding that applicant sustained an industrial injury to his psyche based on the medical opinion of Dr. Goalwin, which only requires “additional clarification” on the issues of permanent disability and apportionment.            We will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration because it is not taken from a final order. Our decision of June 20, 2011 is not a final order because it does not resolve a substantive issue, i.e., whether or not applicant sustained an industrial injury to his psyche. (2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, June 2011 Update) §§ 21.8-21.9.)            Considering the Petition for Reconsideration as a Petition for Removal from a non-final order, we will deny the Petition for Removal because there is no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843, WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.) Although this injured worker with failed back syndrome may have sustained injury to his psyche,1 the issue requires proof by 1            It bears emphasis that we express no final opinion on th

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.