In this case, Marco Cabrera, a former truck driver for C.R. England, Inc., filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after being terminated from his job. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the claim was barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10) because Cabrera did not provide written notice of injury to the employer within 30 days of its occurrence, and the employer did not have notice of the injury before the termination. The Board affirmed the April 19, 2012 Findings and Order of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, denying Cabrera's claim for workers' compensation benefits.

C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY MARCO CABRERA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARCO CABRERA, Applicant,vs.C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7532431(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We earlier granted applicant’s petition for reconsideration of the April 19, 2012 Findings and Order of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who found that applicant “did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his head, neck, back and leg” while employed by defendant as a truck driver on June 24, 2010, and that his claim for workers’ compensation benefits is “barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10).”1 Based upon those findings the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing on his claim.            Applicant contends that the WCJ should have found that compensation is not barred by section 3600(a)(10).            An answer was received and the WCJ provided a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that reconsideration be denied.2            We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the allegations of applicant’s petition for reconsideration and the WCJ’s Report with respect thereto. For the reasons stated by the WCJ in his 1 Applicant dismissed his attorney after the April 19, 2012 decision issued, but before petitioning for reconsideration.2 Defendant urges in its answer that the petition is not properly verified and should be dismissed for that reason. However, we do not find that there is a lack of verification. The verification form, DWC/WCAB Form 45 (REV. 3-76), that was used by applicant is somewhat confusing in that it includes two signature lines, one called “Petitioner” and the other called “‘(Signature).”‘ The form includes applicant’s signature, albeit on the “‘(Signature)”‘ line along with what appears to be the signature of a person who as

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.