Joelle Neeley, vs. State Of California, Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Legally Uninsured,

In this case, Joelle Neeley, the applicant, was employed by three employers between January 13, 1992 and January 29, 2003 and sustained industrial injuries to her back and lower extremities. On January 25, 2007, she received a stipulated Award that her permanent disability was 86% and that there was need for further medical treatment. The defendant, State of California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Legally Uninsured, filed a petition for removal, requesting that the appeals board rescind the Order that issued at a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) on January 15, 2009. The petition was denied and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The issue set for trial is the cause of need for assisted living, not

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, LEGALLY UNINSURED, JOELLE NEELEY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOELLE NEELEY, Applicant,vs.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, LEGALLY UNINSURED, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2806552 (SAC 0224145)ADJ3178667 (SAC 0241495)ADJ3293874 (SAC 0241496)ADJ418015 (SAC 0241498)ADJ2906239 (SAC 0244980)ADJ1177041 (SAC 0249690)ADJ4069918 (SAC 0281453)ADJ130955 (SAC 0281455)ADJ2748881 (SAC 0289595)ADJ4403785 (SAC 0322191)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Defendant has filed a timely petition for removal, requesting that the appeals board rescind the Order that issued at a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) on January 15, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) continued the case to trial, noting that “[defendant] objected to [Declaration of Readiness to Proceed] because there was no treatment request from the [primary treating physician].”            Defendant contends that its due process rights have been jeopardized by allowing the case to go to trial prematurely because any request for medical treatment must begin with the primary treating physician, the conclusion of the agreed medical evaluator (AME) is not based on evidence- based medicine, and the AME’s discussion of the need for “extended assisted living facility” is not substantial evidence. We have not received an answer from applicant. In his Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal, the WCJ states that the issue set for trial is the cause of need for assisted living, not the need for assisted living, and that utilization review is not relevant to the issue of causation of need for medical treatment.            Applicant, while employed by three employers on various dates between January 13, 1992, , and January 29, 2003, sustained industrial injuries to her back and lower extremities. On January 25, 2007, she received a stipulated Award that her perm

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.