Laura Everhart, vs. Dsl Printing, Inc. And Travelers Property Casualty Company,

This case is about DSL Printing, Inc. and Travelers Property Casualty Company, Laura Everhart, and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board in the State of California. Laura Everhart, the applicant, was seeking a Compromise and Release Agreement from the defendants, but the defendants insisted on including a hold-harmless language in the agreement. The WCJ found this to be bad-faith conduct and imposed sanctions. The defendants sought removal or reconsideration, arguing that their actions were in good faith and that the WCJ acted without or in excess of his powers. The WCJ granted reconsideration and rescinded the order, finding that the defendants' conduct was not bad-faith and that the WCJ had exceeded his authority.

DSL PRINTING, INC. and TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, LAURA EVERHART, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALAURA EVERHART, Applicant,vs.DSL PRINTING, INC. and TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ505656 (OAK 0287878)OPINION AND ORDER Applicant, DISMISSING REMOVAL GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, Travelers Property Casualty Company, seeks removal, or alternatively, reconsideration from an order assessing sanctions in the sum of $2,500.00, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813, during proceedings on December 12, 2009, and contained in the Minutes of Hearing served on December 19, 2008. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found defendant engaged in bad faith conduct in negotiating a Compromise and Release Agreement by insisting that certain language be included in the Agreement by which applicant would hold the defendant insurer harmless from any potential future negative effect to applicant arising from the inclusion of a Medicare Set-Aside fund in the settlement agreement. The WCJ concluded that defendant engaged in bad faith by conditioning its consent to the Compromise and Release Agreement on the inclusion of the hold-harmless language, after defendant was put on notice by the WCJ that such language had not been approved by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in the past and that the WCJ would not approve the parties’ Compromise and Release Agreement with the hold-harmless language.            Defendant contends that it is aggrieved by the WCJ’s order imposing sanctions, and alternatively, seeks removal or reconsideration. Defendant asserts that it will suffer significant , prejudice and/or irreparable harm as a result of the WCJ’s order. Alternatively, defendant contends the evidence does not justify the WCJ’s findings that it has newly discovered evidence indicating that its actions were in good faith, and that the WCJ acted without or in exce

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.