Gustavo Chairez Murillo vs. Smart & Final Stores; Sedgwick

SMART & FINAL STORES; SEDGWICKIn this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Removal filed by Gustavo Chairez Murillo, rescinding the Order Compelling Medical Examination dated April 24, 2014, and returning the matters to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying issues.

SMART & FINAL STORES; SEDGWICK GUSTAVO CHAIREZ MURILLO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGUSTAVO CHAIREZ MURILLO, Applicant,vs.SMART & FINAL STORES; SEDGWICK, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ8916696(Pomona District Office)ADJ8912549(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Applicant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals. Board rescind the Order Compelling Medical Examination dated April 24, 2014, wherein the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) ordered applicant to submit to evaluation by orthopedic panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) Antoine Roberts, M.D. Applicant contends that he has been denied a hearing on the issue of QME evaluation and that the PWCJ did not provide an opinion on decision in violation of Labor Code section 5313. Defendant has filed an Answer.             Applicant, while employed as a service clerk on December 12, 2012, sustained an industrial injury to multiple body parts, some of which are admitted by defendant. Applicant also claims to have sustained a cumulative trauma injury to multiple body parts from June 9, 2012, through December 12, 2012. This injury is denied.            Applicant’s petition is almost completely opaque as to the underlying procedural facts at issue here. From what we can glean from defendant’s answer, it appears that this is a garden variety race to the Medical Director dispute over the specialty of the panel of QMEs (chiropractic v. orthopedic), with complicating facts that make it more baroque than usual. None of these allegations of fact is supported by anything in the record or filed in EAMS, although defendant attached 34 pages of exhibits to its answer. , In his Report and Recommendation, the PWCJ states that applicant’s Petition was not called to his attention until September 24, 2014, when venue was changed to the Pomona district office. Herecommends

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.