Gwendolyn Queen vs. Fuller Engineering; State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves Gwendolyn Queen, an applicant, and Fuller Engineering and the State Compensation Insurance Fund, the defendants. Queen sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge which found that Queen, while employed as a truck driver from March 25, 2003 to March 25, 2004, sustained industrial injury to her left and right arms, wrists and hands, but not to her left shoulder or in the form of diabetes. The court denied Queen's Petition for Reconsideration, finding that the medical opinion of the defendant's Qualified Medical Evaluator was based on a detailed history obtained from Queen and was better reasoned than the opinion of Queen's QME. The court also found that Queen did not disclose

Fuller Engineering; State Compensation Insurance Fund Gwendolyn Queen WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGWENDOLYN QUEEN, Applicant,vs.FULLER ENGINEERING; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ735344OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 19, 2010. wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a truck driver during the cumulative period from March 25, 2003 to March 25. 2004, sustained industrial injury to her left and right arms, wrists and hands, but not to her left shoulder or in the form of diabetes. As relevant here, the WCJ further found that the February 16, 2010 report of defendant’s Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Ajit Singh Arora, M.D. (marked for identification only as defendant’s Exhibit C), the August 12, 2009 letter from the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWQ Legal Unit regarding Dr. Arora (marked for identification only as applicant’s Exhibit 5) and the August 12, 2009 Disciplinary Order of the Acting Chief Deputy Administrative Director of DWC regarding Dr. Arora (marked for identification only as applicant’s Exhibit 6) were inadmissible.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in Finding that she did not sustain a cumulative industrial injury in the form of diabetes and in excluding applicant’s Exhibits 5 and 6. Applicant argues that the WCJ erred in relying on the medical opinion of Dr. Arora which does not constitute substantial evidence because he ignored the analysis of applicant’s QME Jeffrey- Hirsch, M.D.; he misrepresented applicant’s history; and he had “a history of misconduct in representations to Administrative Agencies*’ (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 9). Applicant , also argues-that her exhibits -regarding the disciplinary action taken by DWC against Dr. Arora are competent, relevant evidence as to Dr. Arora’s status and m

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.