Lydia Quinones vs. Star Ring California Indemnity Insurance Company As Administered By Gallagher Bassett Services Inc

(LBO 0329885) is a case in which the defendant, Star Ring/California Indemnity Insurance Company as administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued on March 25, 2014 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the applicant, Lydia Quinones, sustained industrial injury to her spine and psyche; that she was permanent and stationary on January 19, 2009; that she was entitled to reimbursement for the costs of her vocational expert; that she was entitled to home health care services; and that she was 100% permanently disabled. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, issued orders designating three exhibits, and issued

STAR RING CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY as administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC LYDIA QUINONES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALYDIA QUINONES, Applicant,vs.STAR RING/CALIFORNIA INDEMNITYINSURANCE COMPANY as administered byGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ3793506 (LBO 0329885)OPINION AND ORDER    GRANTING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATIONAND NOTICE OF INTENTIONTO ADMIT EVIDENCE            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued on March 25, 2014 by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to her spine and psyche; that she was permanent and stationary on January 19, 2009; that she was entitled to reimbursement for the costs of her vocational expert; that she was entitled to home health care services; and that she was 100% permanently disabled.            Defendant contends that the WCJ violated its due process rights by denying its request to obtain a supplemental report from its Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME); that the record should be further developed to obtain that report; that the finding of 100% permanent disability is not supported by the evidence; that the report of applicant’s QME of March 2, 2010 was not substantial evidence because it is contradicted by his report of December 17, 2013; that the WCJ erred in considering the reports of applicant’s vocational expert and awarding reimbursement for the cost of that expert; that the award of home health care services is not supported by the evidence; that applicant was permanent and stationary at an earlier date; and that it did not stipulate to injury to applicant’s psyche.            We received an Answer from applicant. We received a Report and Recommendation (Report) from the WCJ in response to the Petition for Reconsideration which recommended that defendant’s Petition be denied, except that she recommended that three exhibits be admitt

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.