Karen Favor vs. Petaluma School District: Insurance Group Insights

This case involves a dispute between Karen Favor, an employee of the Petaluma School District, and the Redwood Empire Schools Insurance Group, her employer's workers' compensation insurance provider. Favor filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after she sustained an industrial injury to her low back on September 14, 2004. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the separate petitions of Favor and the insurance group for reconsideration of the December 10, 2007 Joint Findings, Award and Order of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. The Board rescinded the entire December 10, 2007 Joint Findings, Award and Order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the rating of Favor's permanent disability in light of the recent en banc decisions of the

PETALUMA SCHOOL DISTRICT; REDWOOD EMPIRE SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP, KAREN FAVOR, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKAREN FAVOR, Applicants,vs.PETALUMA SCHOOL DISTRICT; REDWOOD EMPIRE SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ1998767 (SRO 133847)ADJ626023 (SRO 139879) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We previously granted the separate petitions of applicant and defendant for reconsideration of the December 10, 2007 Joint Findings, Award and Order of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who found in SRO 133847 that applicant incurred industrial injury to her low back while employed by defendant as a custodian on September 14, 2004, causing 28% permanent disability after apportionment and a need for future medical treatment. The WCJ further found that $75.00 was a reasonable hourly fee for the rehabilitation consultant who testified for applicant. It was also found upon defendant’s admission in SRO 139879 that applicant incurred industrial injury to her low back on May 14, 1997, but no benefits were awarded in that case because the WCJ concluded that the Application for Adjudication of Claim was filed after the statute of limitations period had expired.            In considering applicant’s permanent disability,.the WCJ determined from the testimony and reporting of defendant’s rehabilitation consultant that the rank of applicant’s diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) in the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (2005 PDRS) did not accurately describe her DFEC, and for that reason he did not apply the 2005 PDRS. Instead the WCJ found applicant’s DFEC to be in the middle of the 331/% to 39% range described by defendant’s expert and concluded from that evidence that she had a permanent disability of 37% before apportionment to non-industrial causative sources. ,             Applicant contends that the reporting of the parties’ Agreed Medical Examiner Michael Sommer, M.D., is not substantial e

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.