Gregory Martinez vs. City Of Anaheim, Permissibly Self- Insured

(MON 0271038) - The City of Anaheim, permissibly self-insured, sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's decision to award temporary total disability benefits to Gregory Martinez for the period January 4, 2007 through May 14, 2008, due to an industrial injury to his spine while employed as a pipe fitter by the City of Anaheim. The court denied the petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's determination, as Martinez had demonstrated an earning capacity through his self-employment activity.

City of Anaheim, Permissibly Self- Insured Gregory Martinez  WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGREGORY MARTINEZ, Applicant,vs. CITY OF ANAHEIm’, Permissibly Self-Insured,Defendant. Case No. ADJ436808 (MON 0271038) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant, City of Anaheim, permissibly self-insured, seeks reconsideration of the , Findings and Award and Order, issued April 21, 2010, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant Gregory Martinez is entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period January 4, 2007 through May 14, 2008, less credit to defendant for payments made, as a result of his May 17, 2000 industrial injury to his spine while employed as pipe fitter by the City of Anaheim. Defendant contends the WCJ erred in concluding applicant i• entitled to temporary total disability benefits, arguing his earning capacity is zero since his post-injury retirement established that he lacked a willingness to continue to work, citing Gonzales v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 68 Cal.App,4th 843 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 1477]. Applicant has filed an answer to the petition for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the WCJ’s determination and will deny defendant’s petition for reconsideration. Background Applicant sustained an admitted injury to his spine on May 17, 2000, while employed as a pipefitter by the City of Anaheim. The matter came on for hearing on February 3, 2010, on  , applicant’s request for temporary total disability benefits for the period January 4, 2007 through May 14,2008. In March of 2003, after 34 years of service applicant retired from his employment. Heopted for a service retirement based upon his years of service, rather than a disability retirement, asthe monthly benefits were better. However, his retirement benefits are not sufficient for him to live on. He testified that at the time he retired, he intended to continue to work

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.