LAURA LOPEZ vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Permissibly Self-Insured

White Memorial Medical Center, Permissibly Self-Insured, was taken to court by Laura Lopez, an applicant, for a workers' compensation claim. The court found that Lopez sustained an industrial injury arising out of and occurring in the course of her employment on July 26, 2008 while employed as a nurse assistant. The court based its decision on a medical report from George S. McCan, M.D. However, Lopez did not testify at trial and the court ultimately rescinded its decision and substituted it with new Findings of Fact providing that lien claimants did not sustain their burden of proving that Lopez sustained injury AOE/COE.

WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Permissibly Self-Insured LAURA LOPEZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALAURA LOPEZ, Applicant,vs.WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant.Case No. ADJ6860845ADJ7929615(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            On September 4, 2012, we granted defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration1 of the June 14, 2012 Findings of Fact issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on July 26, 2008 while employed as a nurse assistant. Previously, applicant’s underlying claim was settled by an August 11, 2011 Order Approving Compromise and Release for $11,000.00 containing a finding pursuant to Thomas v. Sports Chalet (1977) 42 Cal.Comp.Cases 625 providing that there were good faith issues which, if resolved against applicant, would defeat her right to compensation. Thereafter on December 21, 2011, lien claimant LA Sleep Institute Los Angeles filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) and the matter was set for a lien conference on February 1, 2012 and was then set for trial on April 10, 2012 solely on the issue of injury AOE/COE. Defendant seeks reconsideration of the resulting decision by the WCJ. We granted reconsideration in order to allow us time to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We now issue our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. 1 Although defendant lists two case numbers in its Petition for Reconsideration (i.e., Case No. ADJ6860845 and Case No. ADJ929615) and although we granted reconsideration in both cases, the April 10, 2012 trial and the June 14, 2012 Findings of Fact, at issue here, pertain only to Case No. ADJ6860845. Furthermore, defendant does not articulate any issue with regard to Case No. ADJ929615. Therefore, our decision pertains only to Case No. ADJ686

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.