Frank Flores, vs. Nickel’s Payless Stores, And Wausau Insurance Companies, Everest National Insurance Company, Adjusted By American Commercial Claims Adminsitrators,

This case involves a dispute between Frank Flores, the applicant, and Nickel's Payless Stores, Wausau Insurance Companies, and Everest National Insurance Company, adjusted by American Commercial Claims Administrators, the defendants. The applicant claimed that he sustained an industrial injury to his right foot and ankle on January 7, 1999, and a subsequent injury to his right foot and ankle on October 29, 2001. The parties selected an agreed medical evaluator (AME) who diagnosed the applicant with multiple foot problems and opined that only the right ankle arthrosis was industrial in nature. The AME also opined that the applicant did not sustain an injury on October 29, 2001, and that the applicant should be limited to a sedentary position with

NICKEL’S PAYLESS STORES, and WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS, FRANK FLORES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAFRANK FLORES, Applicant,vs. NICKEL’S PAYLESS STORES, and WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCECOMPANY, adjusted by AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931)ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            On November 20, 2008, we granted reconsideration of the September 2, 2008 Amended Findings, Award and Order wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the applicant, while employed as a stock/merchandise clerk, sustained an industrial injury to his right foot and ankle on January 7, 1999, (FRE 209931) and did not sustain an industrial injury to his right foot and ankle on October 29, 2001, (FRE 209932). The WCJ also found that the January 7, 1999 injury caused 80% permanent partial disability without apportionment. In addition to granting reconsideration, we issued a notice of intention to admit into evidence as “Appeals Board Exhibit X,” the reports of the agreed medical evaluator (AME). We hereby admit the reports of the AME into evidence as “Appeals Board Exhibit X” and issue our decision.            For the reasons discussed below, we will affirm the WCJ’s September 2, 2008 decision.            We will briefly review the relevant facts. The applicant was diagnosed with diabetes prior to his January 7, 1999 injury. On January 7, 1999, the applicant sustained an injury to his right foot and ankle. The applicant also claimed that he sustained a subsequent injury to his right foot , and ankle on October 29, 2001.            The parties selected Dr. Kroeker as an AME. Dr. Kroeker diagnosed the applicant with multiple foot problems and opined that “only the right ankle arthrosis is industrial in nature.” (Appeals Board Exhibit X

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.