Elizabeth Alvarez, vs. Unico American Corporation; Explorer Insurance Company/icwgroup,

, UNICO AMERICAN CORPORATION , EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY/ICWGROUP , ELIZABETH ALVAREZ , WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIA , This case is about Elizabeth Alvarez, who was employed as an operations manager on May 3, 2002 and sustained an industrial injury to her low back/tailbone (coccyx), right knee and right ankle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 9, 2009, which found that the injury to her right knee and right ankle was a compens

UNICO AMERICAN CORPORATION; EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY/ICWGROUP, ELIZABETH ALVAREZ, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAELIZABETH ALVAREZ, Applicant,vs.UNICO AMERICAN CORPORATION;EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY/ICW GROUP, Defendant.Case Nos. ADJ2679141 (VNO 0452598)ADJ2658608 (VNO 0490822)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 9, 2009, wherein the WCJ found that applicant while employed as an operations manager on May 3, 2002 (ADJ2679141/VNO 0452598), sustained an industrial injury in to her low back/tailbone (coccyx), right knee and right ankle. The WCJ also found that she did not sustain a new and distinct injury to her right knee and right ankle on May 10, 2002 (ADJ26586081VNO 0490822), but that the injury to her right knee and right ankle was a compensable consequence of the May 3, 2002 specific injury. The WCJ further found that some of the treatment provided by lien claimants, Beverly Hills Center for Arthroscopic and Outpatient Surgery; Hekmat Orthopedics Medical Group/Jamshid Hekmat, M.D.; and Shirin Hekmat, M.D. (hereafter “lien claimants”), was not reasonable and necessary. Previously, we granted lien claimants’ petitions for reconsideration, rescinded the October 17, 2008 Finding of Fact, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant sustained industrial injury i to her low back/ tailbone (coccyx), right knee and right ankle, arguing that the WCJ’s finding , contradicts the October 17, 2008 decision issued by the prior WCJ, Judge Mah, before he retired. Defendant argues that the WCJ should have limited his July 9, 2009 decision to clarifying dates of injury and body parts pled because the October 17, 2008 decision was rescinded only in part.   

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.