Harry P. Winston vs. City Of Los Angeles, Permissibly Self- Insured

This case involves a dispute between Harry P. Winston, a former police officer, and the City of Los Angeles, who is permissibly self-insured. Winston claims he sustained industrial injuries to his bilateral knees, lumbar and cervical spine, gastrointestinal system, and hearing while employed as a police officer from September 8, 1970 to March 7, 2002. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the September 2, 2010 Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, rescinded the decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by a WCJ due to the defendant's deprivation of due process in not being allowed to cross-examine the Disability Evaluation Unit rater.

City Of Los Angeles, Permissibly Self- Insured Harry P. Winston WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAHARRY P. WINSTON, Applicant,vs.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self- Insured, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3234790 (VNO 0443319); ADJ4252592 (VNO 0411668)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSI DERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the September 2, 2010 Findings and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge fWCJ) wherein the WCJ found, based on the parties’ prior stipulations, that applicant, while employed as a police officer during the period from September S. 1970 lo and including March 7. 2002, sustained industrial injury to his bilaicral knees, lumbar and cervical spine, gastrointestinal system (GF.RD). and hearing The WCJ further found dial applicani sustained industrial injury in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel and that the injury herein caused 84% permanent disability after apportionment.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding one cumulative trauma period from September 8, 1970 to March 7, 2002 arguing that the panics stipulated to two separate injuries ending on different dates and involving different body pans and that Labor Code1 2 section 5303 prohibits the merging of separate injuries. Defendant further contends that the WCJ erred in finding 84% permanent disability arguing that the decision is not based on substantial evidence. Finally, defendant contends that the WCJ violated its right to due process by failing lo allow cross- examination of the DEU: rater. 1            All further statutory references are to the Labor Code, unless otherwise noted2            Referring to the Disability Evaluation Unit. ,             Applicant filed an Answer. However, because the WCJ retired, he was not available to issue a report and recommendation on petition for reconsideration.            Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.