Fidel Lopez vs. Reinforcing Post-tensioning services, Inc.; Aig/chartis Insurance Company

This case is about Fidel Lopez, an iron worker employed by Reinforcing Post-Tensioning Services, Inc., who claimed to have sustained a cumulative injury to his bilateral upper extremities arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment by the defendant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the May 17, 2010 decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on all issues.

Reinforcing Post-Tensioning Services, Inc.; Aig/Chartis Insurance Company Fidel Lopez WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAFIDEL LOPEZ, Applicant,vs.REINFORCING POST-TENSIONING SERVICES, INC.; AIG/CHARTIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ4547816OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            AIG/Chartis Insurance Company, on behalf of Reinforcing Post-Tensioning Services, Inc. (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Orders issued May 17, 2010, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that Fidel Lopez (applicant) while employed by defendant as an iron worker during a cumulative period ending December 13, 2007. sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment to his bilateral upper extremities that caused a period of temporary disability, permanent disability of 30% without basis for apportionment, and need for further medical treatment. The WCJ further found that the claim of injury was not barred by the statute of limitations or as a post-termination claim under the provisions of Labor Code section 3600(a)(l0).            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury to December 13, 2007, arguing that applicant failed to establish by substantia] evidence a period of injurious exposure beyond February 2005, when he was last employed by defendant. Additionally, defendant claims that the WCJ erred in relying on the reports of Dr. Esly Barreras to support the finding of temporary disability. Defendant also claims that it was denied due process because the WCJ did not request a recommended rating from a disability evaluation specialist (rater), thereby depriving defendant of an opportunity to cross-examine the rater. Finally, , defendant argues that inasmuch as the record is clear that applicant’s employment with defendant ended approximately February 7

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.