Jerry Johns, vs. City Of Los Angeles Fire Department, Permissibly Self-insured,

In this case, the City of Los Angeles Fire Department sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award issued in 2009, which found that the statute of limitations had not run on the applicant's claims of industrial injury to his heart. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that the City of Los Angeles had not established that the applicant had knowledge of the industrial cause of his disability more than one year prior to the filing of his claim. The Board also found that the City of Los Angeles had not established that the applicant's medical condition was an industrial injury, giving rise to a limitation issue.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT, Permissibly Self-Insured, JERRY JOHNS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJERRY JOHNS, Applicant,vs.CITY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant.Case Nos. ADJ2011435 (VNO 0392109)ADJ1676285 (VNO 0434465)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION            Defendant, City of Los Angeles, permissibly self-insured, seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award, issued August 24, 2009, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant’s claim of industrial injury to his heart was not barred by the statute of limitations, finding the defendant’s failure to provide applicant a claim form after a January 20, 1987 medical evaluation tolled the limitation period, until applicant sustained disability and knowledge on April 12, 1998 and filed his claim on March 25, 1999.            Defendant contends applicant’s claims of a specific and a cumulative trauma injury to his Cheart, which were not filed until 12 years after applicant retired, are barred. Defendant argues the WCJ erred, first, in concluding that it breached its duty to provide applicant with a claim form following a 1987 medical exit evaluation which the WCJ concluded gave defendant knowledge of applicant’s potential industrial injury. Second, defendant contests the WCJ’s reliance upon applicant’s testimony, which it asserts is not trustworthy, over the written evidence, to conclude applicant did not have knowledge that he had sustained an industrial injury when he received the results of the medical exit evaluation. Third, defendant argues that applicant’s claims should be barred because they were filed more than one year from April 12, 1998, the date of his heart , attack. Fourth, defendant asserts the WCJ erred in finding defendant was obligated to provide applicant with a claim form, since it did not have notice of applicant’s injury. Fifth, defendant argues that it cannot be e

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.