Cc Glass (Special Employer); Clark Construction (General Employer); Zurich Los Angeles For Clark Construction, Kevin Smith, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKEVIN SMITH, Applicant,vs.CC GLASS (special employer); CLARK CONSTRUCTION (general employer); ZURICH LOS ANGELES for CLARK CONSTRUCTION,Defendants.Case No. ADJI0204256(Long Beach District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report, which we adopt and incorporate by reference with the exception of the WCJ’s statement that defendant did not raise the issue of development of the record at the time of trial, we will deny reconsideration. Labor Code section 5502(c) provides that a case will be set for trial from the priority conference calendar only after discovery is complete or the WCJ determines that the parties have had sufficient time in which to complete discovery. The first time defendant requested an opportunity to depose Dr. Greenspan was at trial rather than a priority conference. Furthermore, defendant did not provide evidence that it acted with diligence in obtaining discovery. For example, there is no evidence defendant raised the issue of industrial causation with Dr. Greenspan at the time it solicited the December supplemental report. While Dr. Greenspan references issues submitted to him by the parties, he does not identify whether the applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE as one of the issues. (Exh. z, Mark Greenspan M.D., December 23, 2016 Report.)////// , For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD _______________________________ DEIDRA E. LOWEI CONC
Menu
