MENTOR CORPORATION; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION JEANETTE ZINKE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJEANETTE ZINKE, Applicant,vs.MENTOR CORPORATION; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ1839782 (GOL 0101821)ADJ2471155 (GOL 0101822)ADJ3556721 (GOL 0101823)ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in said report which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. Applicant contends that “defendant consumed the entire 104 weeks of TD without providing the necessary treatment []” for applicant’s left knee. (Petition for Reconsideration at 11 :1-14.) At 12:23- 13:17 of her petition for reconsideration, however, applicant fails to make specific references to the record and fails to tie that evidence to the elements necessary to establish a showing of tolling or estoppel. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10842(b).) Accordingly, there is no basis in estoppel or tolling to prevent defendant from asserting the two-year limit on temporary disability benefits. (Medearis v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1111 [writ denied]; Ramos v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 936 [writ denied]; Baltazar v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 486 [writ denied]; Casazza v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1657 [writ denied]; Medeiros III v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 857 [writ denied].)/// , Applicant also contends that under Labor Code section 5813, defendant should be sanctioned for allegedly refusing or delaying treatment with “full knowledge that the 104 week clock was ticking away[.]” (Petition for Reconsideration at p. 13:22.) We deny the contention because it was never raised at trial. (See Mi
Menu
