Elvia Zelada, vs. Exopack And United States Fire Insurance Company, Administered By Gallagher Bassett Services,

In this case, Elvia Zelada, an employee of Exopack and United States Fire Insurance Company, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, sought reconsideration of the Findings Award & Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 26, 2017. The WCJ found that Zelada sustained injury to her cervical and lumbar spine, bilateral wrists, bilateral knees, left shoulder and psych, that she did not sustain injury to her right shoulder, that she was permanent and stationary as of January 28, 2013, that the injury caused 41% disability and that the Employment Development Department (EDD) would be reimbursed $10, 934.28, and that the

Exopack and United States Fire Insurance Company, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Elvia Zelada, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAELVIA ZELADA,Applicant,vs.EXOPACK and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES,Defendants.Case No. ADJ8459545 _(San Bernardino District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Findings Award & Order (F&A) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 26, 2017 wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury to her cervical and lumbar spine, bilateral wrists, bilateral knees, left shoulder and psych, that she did not sustain injury to her right shoulder, that applicant was permanent and stationary as of January 28, 2013, that the injury caused 41% disability and that the Employment Development Department (EDD) would be reimbursed $10, 934.28, and that the balance of its lien was disallowed.            Applicant contends that her serious and willful claim, Labor Code section 132a claim and petition for penalties were not addressed and/or decided by the F &A, that the reports by her treating psychologist are substantial evidence regarding disability caused by the psychiatric injury, and that orthopedic Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) reports and deposition testimony are not substantial evidence regarding apportionment.            We received a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ recommending the Petition be denied. We have not received an Answer from defendant.            We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the Answer and the contents of the Report. Based upon our review of the record, for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, which we adopt , and incorporate, except for the paragraph labeled “Contention E” (Report, p. 5), and for

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.