Maria E. Garcia, vs. San Diego Unified Port District, American Home Assurance Company, Adjusted By Aig Domestic Claims,

is a case in which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both the applicant and defendant's petitions for reconsideration. The applicant was seeking reconsideration of the WCJ's decision to deny massage therapy as part of her need for further medical treatment, while the defendant was seeking reconsideration of the WCJ's decision to allow a sleep study, orthopedic consult, and psychiatric consult, as well as the WCJ's decision to exclude the reports of two PQMEs and admit the report of Dr. Dureza. The Board found that the WCJ's decision was justified by the reports of the treating physician, Dr. DiSabatino, and denied both petitions for reconsideration.

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Adjusted by AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, MARIA E. GARCIA, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARIA E. GARCIA, Applicant,vs.SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCECOMPANY, Adjusted by AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ655912 (SDO 0342137)ADJ677760 (SDO 0342143)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Orders of December 2, 2008, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that on January 13, 2005 (ADJ655912), and during the period November 20, 1998 to January 13, 2005 (ADJ677060), applicant sustained industrial injury to her right shoulder and neck, that in ADJ655912, applicant is entitled to further medical treatment, including the prompt authorization for a sleep study, the prompt authorization for an orthopedic consult, and the prompt authorization for a psychiatric consult, and that “Dr. DiSabatino did not recommend massage therapy, so there is no evidence that massage therapy is any longer necessary.” In addition, the WCJ found that “the reports of putative Panel Qualified Medical Examiners Fuller and Ricciardi [defense exhibits Exhibit A and B] were not properly obtained, so they are not admissible into evidence,” and the WCJ overruled defendant’s objection to the admissibility of the June 9, 2006 PR-2 Progress Report of Dr. Dureza (applicant’s Exhibit 2).            Applicant’s petition for reconsideration contends, in substance, that the WCJ erred in ]I denying massage therapy as part of her need for further medical treatment.            Defendant filed an answer. ,             Defendant’s petition for reconsideration contends, in substance, that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant is entitled to a sleep study and orthopedic and psychiatric consults, that the WCJ erred in excluding the reports of Dr. Fuller and Dr. Ri

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.