Jose Navarro vs. Lockheed; Permissibly Self-insured

In this case, Jose Navarro sought reconsideration of a decision by a workers' compensation judge that he did not sustain an industrial injury to his left shoulder, left arm, low back, left leg, neck, and left hip on March 12, 1990. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration and found that the petition was misleading. The Board then proceeded to consider sanctions against Navarro's attorney for citing to evidence outside the record and for making false statements of fact. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to impose $1,000 in sanctions jointly and severally against Navarro's attorney and law firm, and to allow attorney's fees to the defendant in an amount to be adjusted. The Board then returned the matter to the trial

Lockheed; permissibly self-insured Jose Navarro WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSE NAVARRO, Applicant,vs.LOCKHEED; permissibly self-insured, Defendant.Case Nos. ADJ1128865 (VNO 0244369)ADJ1909887 (VNO 0181430)ADJ1393892 (VNO 0226294)OPINION AND ORDERS DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING REMOVAL ON BOARD MOTION, NOTICE OF INTENTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS, AND OTHERWISE RETURNING MATTER TO TRIAL LEVEL            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order of May 23, 2011, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in ADJ1393892, that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his left shoulder, left arm, low back, left leg, neck, and left hip on March 12, 1990.            Applicant contends that all the physicians who examined him and reviewed the medical records near the time of the alleged injury, including Dr. Abrams, the original defense Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in orthopedics, agreed that applicant sustained an industrial injury to his neck and back on March 12, 1990. Applicant further contends that testimony presented at trial established that he was injured on March 12, 1990 while pushing a large dolly with a co-worker, and that Dr. Komblum’s medical reports are not substantial evidence because he relied on incomplete and inaccurate data and “misconstrued” Dr. Harwin’s initial report.            Defendant filed an answer.            We have considered the allegations of applicant’s petition for reconsideration and the Report and Recommendation of the 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 applicant’s petition for reconsideration.            As noted in the WCJ’s Report, applicant’s petition for reconsideration includes all three case numbers in its caption, but the petition makes specific allegations of error only with respect to the alleged , injury of March 12, 1990, in ADJ139389

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.