MARANTZ COOPERATIVE PURCHASERS RECONSIDERATION and EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP, JUAN NAVARRO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJUAN NAVARRO, Applicant,vs.MARANTZ COOPERATIVE PURCHASERS and EMPLOYERS COMPENSATIONINSURANCE GROUP, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ798960 (MON 0345636)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 17, 2009 Findings of Fact and Award wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the applicant, while employed on November 29, 2004 as a truck driver/loader and unloader, sustained an industrial injury to his neck, back and psyche that caused 42% permanent disability. The WCJ also found that applicant’s permanent disability must be rated according to the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule (2005 PDRS). Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that the 2005 PDRS should be used to rate applicant’s permanent disability, arguing that a December 2, 2004 medical report from Dr. Vakili is a comprehensive medical report indicating the existence of permanent disability prior to January 1, 2005. In the alternative, applicant argues that the WCJ erred in finding 42% permanent disability, arguing that pursuant to our recent en banc decision Almarez v. Environmental Recovery Services and Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 201 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Almarez/Guzman),1 there is a substantial disparity 1On April 6. 2009, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration of Almarez/Guzman, but did not issue a stay of the February 3, 2009 decision. Accordingly, the February 3, 2009 decision remains binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.8-, §10341; Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th1418 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 236].) , between applicant’s permanent disability as described under AMA Guides to. the Evaluation of Permanent
Menu
