Jesus Torres, vs. Greenbrae Management; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

In this case, Jesus Torres is appealing a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award (F&A) issued on December 29, 2016, which found that Torres sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his head, neck, back, ears, psyche, and resulting cognitive difficulties and that Torres' injury resulted in permanent disability of 57%, and that Torres did not suffer a "catastrophic injury" within the meaning of Labor Code section 4660.1 (c). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted Torres' Petition for Reconsideration of the F&A and has received a response from the defendant, Greenbrae Management.

Greenbrae Management; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Jesus Torres, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJESUS TORRES,Applicant,vs.GREENBRAE MANAGEMENT; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,Defendants.Case No. ADJ9355637(Santa Rosa District Office)NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ACCEPT SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES            We previously granted applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on December 29, 2016, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), in order to further study the factual and legal issues.            Applicant seeks reconsideration from the F&A, which found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his head, neck, back, ears, psyche, and resulting cognitive difficulties and that applicant’s injury resulted in permanent disability of 57%, and that applicant did not suffer a “catastrophic injury” within the meaning of Labor Code1 section 4660.1 (c), such that permanent disability for applicant’s psychiatric injury was not compensable.            Applicant contends that the award of permanent disability should have included the disability from applicant’s psychiatric injury because applicant’s psychiatric injury was a direct result of his injury and not a compensable consequence of a physical injury and because section 4660.1 does not preclude increases in impairment where such increases are made pursuant to Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 822 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837], and in the alternative because applicant’s injury constituted a “catastrophic injury”, which is an exception under section 4660.1 (c). 1 All future references are to the Labor Code unless noted. ,             We have received an answer from defendant. We received a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ recommending that we deny reconsideration.     

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.