GIOVANNI MENDOZA vs. COBY ELECTRONICS CORP.; CHUBB INSURANCE

; ADJ6597177In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration from lien claimant, Nachman Brautbar, M.D., who sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Orders issued October 18, 2012. The WCJ found that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury and that there was no reliable evidence as to the reasonableness or necessity of services rendered by Nachman Brautbar, M.D. The Appeals Board found that lien claimant's reliance upon the Keifer case was incorrect and that lien claimant had failed to follow the law regarding the burden of proof and the rules and regulations concerning the presentation of evidence at trial. The petition for reconsideration was

COBY ELECTRONICS CORP.; CHUBB INSURANCE GIOVANNI MENDOZA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGIOVANNI MENDOZA, Applicant,vs.COBY ELECTRONICS CORP.; CHUBB INSURANCE, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7224294; ADJ6597177(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Lien claimant, Nachman Brautbar, M.D., seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Orders issued October 18, 2012 wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his psyche, lower extremity, internal, hernia, cervical spine or sleep and that “there is no evidence that Nachman Brautbar, M.D. was ever the requested to be or was the treating doctor of applicant.” The WCJ also found that there was no “reliable evidence” as to the reasonableness or necessity of services rendered by Nachman Brautbar, M.D. and ordered that Dr. Brautbar’s lien was disallowed.            Lien claimant contends that the WCJ erred by disallowing the lien arguing that lien claimant had a presumption of lien validity because applicant’s case was settled by a Compromise and Release Agreement pursuant to Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 20 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 857] (Keifer). Lien claimant further contends that settlement of applicant’s claimby compromise and release with a Thomas finding shifts the burden of proof to defendant and relieves lien claimants from the “need to prove injury AOE/COE” (Petition, p. 2). Lien claimant also contends that lien claimant was unable to present adequate evidence because “lien claimant was not prepared nor listed exhibits for an issue that, was not raised” in the Pre-Trial Conference Statement (Petition, p. 3).            We have reviewed the record and considered the issues raised in lien claimant’s petition. Based , upon the reasons set forth in the WCJ’s Joint Report and Recommendation on Petition forReconsideration (Repo

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.