George Viveiros vs. Turlock City Tow Service, westport Insurance Corporation, Administered By Southland Claims Service, Inc.

This case involved a dispute between George Viveiros, the applicant, and Turlock City Tow Service, Westport Insurance Corporation, and Southland Claims Service, Inc., the defendants. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration and dismissal of the petition for removal, finding that the defendant was untimely in its objection to the applicant's claim for back surgery benefits, that the burden of proof was on the applicant, and that the medical reports from three physicians were substantial evidence.

Turlock City Tow Service, Westport Insurance Corporation, Administered By Southland Claims Service, Inc. George Viveiros WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGEORGE VIVEIROS, Applicant,vs.TURLOCK CITY TOW SERVICE, WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Administered by SOUTHLAND CLAIMS SERVICE, INC., Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ4671941 (STK 0169283)OPINION AND ORDERS DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Defendant seeks “removal and/or reconsideration” following the “Finding and Award”, issued July 27, 2010, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant was “entitled to the back surgery described by Drs. Barnett and Cayton and ratified by Dr. Burt.”            In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ explained that defendants did not timely respond to applicant’s request to proceed with back surgery. The WCJ also noted that it was defendant’s burden to show that “they provided timely objection.” The WCJ further noted that substantial medical opinion evidence supports provision of back surgery’ to applicant and that Dr. Burt’s April 13, 2010 report states that “the procedure should be done without delay.”            ’            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred: (1) by finding that defendant was untimely in its objection to applicant’s claim for back surgery’ benefits arguing that “Dr. Canton’s report dated February 11, 2009 was not received by the defendants until February 24, 2009” and that “the response by utilization review on March 2, 2009 was thus timely pursuant to Labor Code section 4610”; (2) by basing the decision upon defendant’s failure to meet its burden of proof arguing that , “the burden of proof on this issue was on the applicant and not the defendants” pursuant to Labor Code section 3202.5; (3) by failing to find that applicant’s medical report from Dr. Canton, dated February 11, 2009, was not clearly marked a

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.