Eugene Minet vs. Qwest Communications, Permissibly Self-insured

Qwest Communications, Permissibly Self-Insured, was taken to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board by Eugene Minet, who claimed to have sustained an industrial injury to his orthopedic system during his employment with Qwest. The WCJ found that Minet had sustained an industrial injury, but not to his vision, and that all other issues were deferred pending further development of the medical record. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the Findings of Fact and Order of June 1, 2007, and returned the matter to the trial-level WCJ for further proceedings that would include creating an adequate trial record and a new decision.

Qwest Communications, Permissibly Self-Insured Eugene Minet WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEUGENE MINET, Applicant,vs.QWEST COMMUNICATIONS, permissibly self-insured, Defendant.Case No. MON 0306639OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order of June 1, 2007, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in essence, that applicant sustained an industrial injury to his orthopedic system, but not to his vision, during a period from June 20, 2000, through February 28, 2003, while employed by defendant. The WCJ also found, in essence, that all other issues are deferred pending further development of the medical record by the parties through their selection of a “neutral orthopedic physician.”            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant sustained an industrial injury, arguing that applicant did not meet his burden of proving injury by a preponderance of the evidence and that there is no medical evidence supporting the finding of industrially-caused cumulative injury.            Applicant filed an answer to the petition for reconsideration. Defendant requested permission to file a response to the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation (Report). The request is denied. Moreover, applicant, without our permission or request, attempted to file an answer to defendant’s request. We have not considered defendant’s supplemental response or applicant’s answer thereto.             We have considered the allegations raised in the petition for reconsideration and answer thereto, as well as the content of the WCJ’s Report. , Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will grantreconsideration, rescind the Findings of Fact and Order of June I, 2007, and return this matter tothe trial level WCJ for further proceedings that will include, but may not be limited to, creating ana

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.