Louis Dukes vs. Northshore Fire Protection District, Permissibly Self-insured And Adjusted By Athens Administrators

In this case, Louis Dukes (applicant) sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 21, 2011. The F&O found that the September 23, 2010 medical report of Dr. Kipperman was not timely served on the parties and ordered that it is inadmissible in this case. The WCJ's Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration was considered, and the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed. The Petition for Removal was also denied.

Northshore Fire Protection District, permissibly self-insured and adjusted by Athens Administrators Louis Dukes WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALOUIS DUKES, Applicant,vs.NORTHSHORE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured and adjusted by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ3777676 (SRO 0142207) OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Louis Dukes (applicant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued in this case by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 21, 2011. The F&O found that the September 23, 2010 medical report of Dr. Kipperman was not timely served on the parties and ordered that it is inadmissible in this case. Additionally, the F&O authorized defendant to request a replacement panel of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QME) from the Medical Director.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in ruling that Dr. Kipperman’s September 23, 2010 medical report is inadmissible because that report includes a proof of service signed under penalty of perjury by Dr. Kipperman on attesting to service on the parties on September 23, 2010.            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) of the WCJ, and the answer filed by defendant.            Based upon our review of the record, the recommendations contained in the WCJ’s Report, and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration. In addition, we will dismiss the Petition as a Petition for Removal.            At the outset, we note that applicant seeks reconsideration of the WCJ’s determination that Dr. Kipperman’s September 23, 2010 report is inadmissible because it was not timely served on the parties, , thereby entitling defendant to request a replacement panel of QMEs. It is well settled that rec

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.