Janet Oliva Candela vs. Jwl Management, Inc.; Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency As Administrator On Behalf Of Star Insurance Company

This case involves Janet Oliva Candela, who is seeking workers' compensation benefits from JWL Management, Inc. and Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency as administrator on behalf of Star Insurance Company. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that defendant did not have a properly noticed medical provider network (MPN). The WCJ also ordered that defendant's proposed exhibits H and I be excluded from evidence. The WCJ's decision is not a final decision on the issue of applicant's entitlement to medical treatment outside the MPN, so the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed. The WCJ must determine whether defendant's inadequate notices to applicant resulted "in a denial of medical care" before defendant's liability for self-proc

JWL Management, Inc.; Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency as administrator on behalf of Star Insurance Company Janet Oliva Candela WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJANET OLIVA CANDELA, Applicant,vs.JWL MANAGEMENT, INC.; ILLINOIS MIDWESTINSURANCE AGENCY as administrator on behalf ofSTAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ8626962ADJ8627505(Los Angeles District Office)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the March 14, 2013 Findings and Order wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that defendant did not have a properly noticed medical provider network (MPN). The WCJ also ordered that defendant’s proposed exhibits H and I be excluded from evidence.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in excluding exhibits H and I from evidence, arguing that defendant provided a certified interpreter at the time of trial to translate the documents. Defendant also contends that no neglect or refusal to provide medical treatment occurred and that the WCJ should have reached the issue of whether the employer’s failure to provide notice resulted in a denial of medical care pursuant to Labor Code section 4616.3(b).            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the petition be denied.            Because the WCJ’s decision is not a final decision on the issue of applicant’s entitlement to medical treatment outside the MPN, we will dismiss defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration. If we were to treat defendant’s petition as a petition for removal, we would deny removal for the reasons stated by the WCJ in his Report, which we adopt and incorporate by reference. ,             Labor Code section 5900(a) allows reconsideration only of a “final order, decision,

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.