Pacific Bell Telephone Company, permissibly self-insured Gary Greenfiled WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGARY GREENFIELD, Applicant,vs.PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,permissibly self-insured, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2223742 (STK 0201798)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION On August 6, 2009, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) granted reconsideration to afford defendant an opportunity to file a petition for reconsideration that complies with WCAB Rule 10845 (8 Cal. Code Regs. §10845).1 Subsequently defendant filed such a petition and applicant filed an answer. We have considered the petition and the answer, and the following is our decision after reconsideration. In the Findings and Award of May 29, 2009, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that on December 22, 2000, applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, and sleep apnea as a compensable consequence of the back injury, resulting in permanent disability of 100% without apportionment. The WCJ also found that applicant was temporarily totally disabled (TTD) from December 23, 2000 through November 14, 2002, when he became permanent and stationary (P&S). Finally, the WCJ denied defendant’s appeal of the June 30, 2006 Determination of the Rehabilitation Unit, in which applicant had been awarded retroactive Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) from February 18, 2002 through July 31, 2005. 1 Rule 10845(a) provides, in relevant part, that “all documents filed in connection with any petition for reconsideration, petition for removal, petition for disqualification or any other matter pending before the Appeals Board shall comply with the requirements of sections 10227, 10228, 10230, 10232, 10235, and 10236, including but not limited to the 25-page limitation of section 10232(a)(10)[.]” , On June 23, 2009, defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration, which, at a length of forty-ni
Menu
