Lori Eskew, vs. County Of Kern, Permissibly Self-insured,

: In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the Findings of Fact and Award of October 21, 2008, determining that the subpoena and copy expenses incurred by Associated Reproduction Services (ARS) were not reasonably and necessarily incurred to prove or disprove a contested claim. The Board found that the employer had accepted liability for the injuries and that the records were requested before the employer had a reasonable period of time to decide if it would dispute the claims. As a result, the Board rescinded the Findings of Fact and Award of October 21, 2008, and ordered that ARS take nothing on its lien claim.

COUNTY OF KERN, permissibly self-insured, LORI ESKEW, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALORI ESKEW, Applicant,vs.COUNTY OF KERN, permissibly self-insured, Defendant.Case No. ADJ4002006 (BAK 0151337)ADJ3034974 (BAK 0151338)ADJ2671916 (BAK 0151339)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONDefendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award of October 21, 2008,wherein the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that lien claimant, Associated            Reproduction Services (ARS), is entitled to $2,352.05, plus interest, from defendant for expenses incurred for subpoenaing and copying applicant’s medical and employment records to be used in applicant’s claims for workers’ compensation benefits for the admitted industrial injuries she sustained to her right knee on December 13, 2002 (case number BAK 0151337), right knee and wrist on November 18, 2004 (case number BAK 0151338), and left upper extremity during a period through December 14, 2005 (case number BAK 0151339), while employed by defendant as a juvenile correction officer.            Defendant contends that it should not be liable for ARS’s lien claim, arguing that ARS failed to meet its burden of proving that the expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred for proving or disproving a contested issue because defendant had already accepted liability for the injuries.            ARS did not file an answer to defendant’s petition for reconsideration.I.            We have considered the allegations made in the petition for reconsideration, as well as the content of the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation.            Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will grant , reconsideration and reverse the Findings of Fact and Award of October 21, 2008, as we conclude that the subpoena and copy expenses were not reasonably and necessarily incurred to prove or disprove a contested claim.II.            The relevant facts d

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.