Elizabeth S. Wallace vs. Law Offices Of Errol Berk; State Compensation Insurance Fund

(OXN 0137895)This case is about Elizabeth S. Wallace, who was injured in an industrial accident and applied for workers' compensation. The Law Offices of Errol Berk and the State Compensation Insurance Fund contested her claim, arguing that her injury did not cause her permanent total disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board disagreed and affirmed their April 1, 2010 decision that Wallace was permanently and totally disabled due to her industrial injury. The Board also rejected the defendants' argument that permanent disability should be apportioned to non-industrial factors, as the evidence provided by the defendants was inadequate.

Law Offices Of Errol Berk; State Compensation Insurance Fund Elizabeth S. Wallace WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAELIZABETH S. WALLACE, Applicant,vs.LAW OFFICES OF ERROL BERK; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case No. ADJ4568443 (OXN 0137895)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We previously granted defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of our April 1, 2010 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, wherein we amended the October 11, 2010 Findings and Award of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to reflect that applicant’s industrial injury caused permanent total disability and to defer the issue of attorney’s fees.’ This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.            Defendant contends we erred in finding permanent total disability and in failing to apportion permanent disability in accordance with the opinion of Dr. Thomas Hedge, agreed medical evaluator (AME) in physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pain management.            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and applicant’s Answer, and we have reviewed the record in this matter.            For the reasons expressed in our April 1, 2010 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, which we incorporate herein, and for the reasons discussed below, we will affirm our April 1, 2010 decision.            In its petition, defendant says that it disagrees with our determination that applicant is totally permanently disabled, before apportionment. (See Petition for Reconsideration, 3:11-3:12, 3:25-3:26; 1            Commissioner Cuneo, who was on the panel for our April 1, 2010 decision, has retired from the Appeals Board. Deputy Commissioner Hamilton was assigned to take his place on the panel. , see also 2:22-25.) All of its arguments, however, address our alleged error in failing to apportion permanent disability to non-industrial factors. Because defendant’s petition fails to “set forth specifically and in fu

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.