Kerrie Delacruz-Peterson vs. California Personnel Board & SCIF

In this case, the State of California Personnel Board and the State Compensation Insurance Fund sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award of October 16, 2007, which found that Kerrie Delacruz-Peterson had sustained an industrial injury to her psyche as a compensable consequence of an injury to her back. The Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision, returning the case to the trial level for clarification and further development of the record on applicant's disability status. The Board noted that there were inconsistencies in the reports of the agreed medical examiner, Dr. Patrick Donlon, and that further clarification was needed. The Board also noted that the record reflected that applicant was temporarily totally disabled because of a severe emotional disturbance and that applicant

State Of California Personnel Board, And State Compensation Insurance Fund Kerrie Delacruz-Peterson WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKERRIE DELACRUZ-PETERSON, Applicant,vs.    STATE OF CALIFORNIA PERSONNEL BOARD, and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case No. SAC 0317096OPINION AND ORDERGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONAND DECISION AFTERRECONSIDERATION            Defendant State of California, State Personnel Board, legally uninsured, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award of October 16, 2007, wherein it was found, inter alia, that Kerrie Delacruz-Peterson, born June 18, 1959, while employed as a manager on September 27, 2000 claims to have sustained industrial injury to her psyche as a compensable consequence of the injury to her back based on the agreed medical examiner (AME), Dr. Patrick Donlon’s report, dated October 4, 2006; that applicant has been adequately compensated for all periods of temporary disability through September 19, 2006; that applicant is partially temporarily disabled from September 20, 2006 through the present and continuing, based on the reports of Dr. Donlon; and that applicant has not worked during her partially temporarily disabled period.            Defendant contends that 1) the supplemental reports of AME Dr. Donlon are not substantial evidence on the issue of temporary disability because they were not based upon examinations and were based on medical evidence that is not germane or on an inadequate medical history; 2) the award of temporary disability, based on AME Donlon’s report October 4, 2006, is in violation of the Stipulations and Award of May 21, 2007, wherein it was , stipulated that the temporary disability issue post-September 19, 2006 was deferred to be addressed by further medical evidence; and 3) the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) erred in rendering a finding on temporary disability when there could be no finding of injury at an expedited hearing. Defendant specifi

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.