James Nichols vs. Entertainment Partners; Cna Claims Plus

This case is about James Nichols, who filed a workers' compensation claim against Entertainment Partners and CNA Claims Plus. The Workers Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues. The WCJ found that Nichols sustained industrial injury to his neck, head, back, right and left knees, right and left shoulders during the period February 28, 2002 through February 28, 2003, and that he sustained temporary disability from March 1, 2003 through December 15, 2003. The WCJ also found that there was apportionment by the subtraction method of 30:2% from 100%, and that Nichols sustained permanent disability of 70% after apportionment. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter to the

Entertainment Partners; Cna Claims Plus James Nichols WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJAMES NICHOLS, Applicant,vs.ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS; CNA CLAIMS PLUS, Defendant(s).Case Nos. OXN0132192; OXN0132193OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            j On March 12, 2007. the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) granted reconsideration1 to further study the factual and legal issues. This is our decision after reconsideration.            In the Joint Findings and Award of December 26, 2006, the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained industrial injury to his neck, head, back, right and left knees, right and left shoulders during the period February 28, 2002 through February 28, 2003 (OXN 132192), that on October 19, 2001, applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, hernia and psyche (OXN 132193), that applicant sustained temporary disability from March 1, 2003 through December 15, 2003. that applicant became permanent and stationary (P&S) on December 15. 2003. that there is apportionment by the subtraction method of 30:2% from 100%. and that applicant sustained permanent disability of 70% after apportionment.            Applicant and defendant both sought reconsideration of the WCJ’s decision.            Applicant’s petition contended that vocational disability is not subject to apportionment and must be added to medical permanent disability after apportionment is applied, and that the calculation of apportionment of permanent disability for a 100% award should be subtraction of the 1 Commissioner Janice Jamison Murray concurred in lhe Order Granting Reconsideration, but she is no longer a member of the Board, and it was necessary to assign another panel member in her place. , dollar amount of the prior award.            Defendant’s petition contended that the WGJ erred in interpreting the opinion of Dr. Fedder, the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), regarding the

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.