Lolondra Mccoy, vs. Aviation Safeguards Aka Command Security; Kemper Group,

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the applicant was not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits due to the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 on January 1, 2009, and that the applicant's right to such benefits had not vested as of that date. The Board also found that the District Court of Appeal's denial of defendant's writ of review on February 19, 2009 was of no legal effect because the right had not vested by that time. The Board concluded that the applicant was not entitled to vocational rehabilitation services or retroactive VRMA from January 27, 2005 and continuing, and there were no benefits from which to award

AVIATION SAFEGUARDS aka COMMAND SECURITY; KEMPER GROUP, LOLONDRA MCCOY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALOLONDRA MCCOY, Applicant,vs.AVIATION SAFEGUARDS aka COMMAND SECURITY; KEMPER GROUP, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ1676676 (LAO 0815773)ADJ2326934 (LAO 0829404)OPINION AND ORDERS GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DISMISSING APPLICANT’S ATTORNEY’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant’s attorney and defendant both seek reconsideration of the Finding & Orders of July 31, 2009, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that the denial, on April 3, 2008, of defendant’s appeal of the October 31, 2005 Determination of the Rehabilitation Unit, which required defendant to provide vocational rehabilitation services and to pay retroactive Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA), was a final order with which defendant must now comply, and that applicant’s attorney is entitled to a fee of $3,800.00, payable from the retroactive benefits awarded.            Applicant’s attorney contends, in substance, that he is entitled to a fee of $8,406.59, based on 15% of the benefits awarded by the WCJ.            Defendant contends, in substance, that the WCJ erred in not following Weiner v. Ralphs Company (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 736 [Appeals Board en bane], and that due to the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 on January 1, 2009, defendant is not liable for vocational rehabilitation I services or retroactive VRMA absent a final order pre-dating January 1, 2009.////// ,             The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation, which describes the relevant facts. Aside from the statement of facts set forth below, we do not adopt or incorporate the WCJ’s Report. The factual statement in the WCJ’s Report is as follows:       “In a Determination, dated 10/31/05, the Rehabilitation Unit       Consultant authorized the provision of vocational rehabilitation       services, due

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.