ERASMO QUINTANILLA AVILES vs. PACER INTERNATIONAL; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Administered By CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

In this case, Erasmo Quintanilla Aviles (applicant) filed a workers' compensation claim against Pacer International and New Hampshire Insurance Company administered by Chartis Claims, Inc. (collectively, defendant). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the Findings & Award/Opinion on Decision issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, finding that the applicant sustained industrial injury to various body parts and that the defendant failed to satisfy its burden of proof that the applicant was an independent contractor.

PACER INTERNATIONAL; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC. ERASMO QUINTANILLA AVILES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAERASMO QUINTANILLA AVILES, Applicant,vs.PACER INTERNATIONAL; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANYadministered by CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ7200789(San Bernardino District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            On December 16, 2011, we granted defendants Pacer International and New Hampshire Insurance Company administered by Chartis Claims, Inc. (collectively, defendant)’s petition for reconsideration to further study the facts and applicable law and issue a just and reasoned decision. This is our decision after reconsideration.            Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings & Award / Opinion on Decision (F&A) issued in this case by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 23, 2011.1 In that F&A, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant Erasmo Quintanilla Aviles (applicant) sustained industrial injury to various body parts and that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of proof that applicant was an independent contractor. Defendant contended that applicant was not an employee because it did not exercise persuasive control over applicant’s employment, that the WCJ erred in finding injury to applicant’s various body parts, and that the WCJ misinterpreted the terms of the contract between applicant and defendant./ / / 1 Chairman Miller who was on the panel that granted defendant’s petition, no longer serves on the Appeals Board. Another panel member was assigned to take his place. ,             We received a response to defendant’s petition from applicant, which we deem to be applicant’s answer. We received a Report and Recommendation (Report) from the WCJ in response to the petition for reconsideration, which recommends denial of the petition.            We have reviewed the record and considered the allegations of 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.