Jose Canales vs. Murray Company Old Republic General Insurance As Administered By Gallagher Bassett

In this case, Jose Canales, an employee of Murray Company, filed a workers' compensation claim alleging he sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to his neck, hands, arms, shoulders and low back during the period August 2006 through March 21, 2013. The employer denied the claim, arguing that it was barred under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) because Canales did not report his injury prior to his termination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, finding that Canales had established he sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury and that the date of injury was subsequent to the date of his termination.

MURRAY COMPANY OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE as administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT JOSE CANALES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSE CANALES, Applicant,vs.MURRAY COMPANY; OLD REPUBLICGENERAL INSURANCE, as administered by,GALLAGHER BASSETT, Defendants.Case No. ADJ9115073(Van Nuys District Office)OPINION AND ORDERDENYING PETITIONFOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, Murray Company, by and through its insurer, Old Republic General Insurance, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award, issued May 2, 2014, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant Jose Canales sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to his neck, hands, arms; shoulders and low back and “possible compensable consequence chronic pain component affecting sleep,” during the period August 2006 through March 2 I, 2013, while employed as warehouseman/tool maintenance. The WCJ disallowed defendant’s affirmative defense, finding applicant’s claim is not barred under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10), as applicant first learned of the industrial nature of his condition subsequent to his termination.            Defendant contests the WCJ’s finding that applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, arguing first that applicant did not meet his burden of proof by providing substantial medical evidence to establish industrial causation, contending that the medical reports of his treating chiropractor are based upon a false history and do not demonstrate industrial causation. Second, defendant contends that even if industrial causation is established, applicant’s claim should be barred because applicant did not report his claim of injury until after his employment was terminated. Defendant asserts that applicant knew or should have known that his injuries were related to his work prior to his termination.            Applicant has filed an answer to the petition for reconsideration, and t

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.