Kevin Martinez, vs. John Jackson Masonry, State compensation Insurance Fund, zenith Insurance Company, defendant(s).

is a case in which Kevin Martinez (applicant) sought reconsideration of the Appeals Board's May 4, 2009 decision which reversed the determination of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The defendant employer had filed a petition for reconsideration which was found to be timely filed. On the merits of the petition, the Appeals Board found that the defendant employer did not violate Labor Code section 132a in terminating applicant's modified job while he was recovering from an industrial injury based on their finding that the termination was due to business necessities. The petition for reconsideration was denied.

JOHN JACKSON MASONRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). KEVIN MARTINEZ, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKEVIN MARTINEZ, Applicant,vs.JOHN JACKSON MASONRY, STATECOMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ3047961 (SAC 0362761)ADJ2039708 (SAC 0362762)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Kevin Martinez (applicant), by his attorney, seeks reconsideration of the Appeals Board’s May 4, 2009 decision wherein we reversed the determination of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). We found that the defendant employer’s petition for reconsideration was timely filed at the local WCAB district office in Sacramento on October 9, 2008. On the merits of the petition, we found that the defendant employer did not violate Labor Code section 132a in terminating applicant’s modified job while he was recovery from an industrial injury based on our finding that the termination was due to business necessities.            Applicant contends generally that the Appeals Board erred in finding that the defendant employer did not discriminate against him when it terminated him. Applicant alleges that he did sufficiently demonstrate detrimental treatment and that he was also singled out for disadvantageous treatment because of his industrial injury. Applicant also asserts that defendant’s original petition for reconsideration was untimely filed.            We have considered the allegations and arguments of applicant’s petition and the contents of our prior Decision After Reconsideration of May 4, 2009. Based on our review of the record , once again, and for the reasons stated in our prior Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, which we adopt and incorporate herein by reference, we deny applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration.            the “Notice of Hearing” attached to the declaration of Jordan T.L. Peters dated November 19, 2008. That “Notice of

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.