EOS; AIG Jacqueline Erskine WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJACQUELINE ERSKINE, Applicant, vs.EOS; AIG, Defendants.Case No. ADJ346330 (AHM 0085538) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 31, 2.011 Joint Findings and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found, based on the parties’ prior stipulations, that applicant sustained industrial injury to her upper extremities, shoulders, wrists, and elbows while employed as a registered nurse on February 23, 2000 and during the period from December 7, 1998 through December 29, 2000. The WCJ further found that applicant did not establish that the permanent disability resulting from either injury, when considered alone and without regard to or adjustment for her age and occupation, is equal to 35% or more of her total disability. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her claim for benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIF). Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that she did not establish entitlement to benefits from the SIF arguing that the two injuries involved the same body part, that they became permanent and stationary on the same date, and that their combined permanent disability meets the 35% requirement of Labor Code1 section 4751 pursuant to the holding in Wilkinson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 491 [42 Cal.Comp.Cases 406].2 Applicant also requests that we order defendant to reimburse 1 All further statutory references are to the Labor Code, unless otherwise noted.2 In Wilkinson, the Supreme Court essentially held that an injured worker is entitled to one combined permanent disability rating when he or she sustains successive injuries to the same part of the body while employed by the same employer, and the injuries become permanent and stationary at the sa
Menu
