Maria Martinez, vs. Sunrise Ranch; California Insurance Guarantee Association, By Intercare Insurance Services For Paula Insurance Company, Inliquidation,

is a case in which the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) sought reconsideration of a decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) that found that the applicant sustained industrial injury to her bilateral wrists and hands during the period August 27, 1987 to October 6, 1998, causing permanent disability of 51%. CIGA argued that there was no jurisdiction to award the benefits for the 1998 date of injury, that the WCJ did not have the power to amend the issues presented at trial, and that the AME report was not admissible. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and new decision by the WCJ.

SUNRISE RANCH; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, By INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES For PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY, InLiquidation, MARIA MARTINEZ, WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARIA MARTINEZ,, Applicant,vs.SUNRISE RANCH; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, By INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES For PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY, InLiquidation,, .Defendant(s).Case Nos.OXN 0143803OPINION AND ORDERGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONAND DECISION AFTERRECONSIDERATION            Defendant, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), adjusting the “covered claims” of Paula Insurance Company in liquidation, seeks reconsideration of the May 16, 2007 Findings and Award and Order of Commutation in OXN 0143803, in which the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained industrial injury to her bilateral wrists and hands during the period August 27, 1987 to October 6, 1998, causing permanent disability of 51%, that applicant is entitled to a “un-apportioned award,” and that CIGA’s objection to the admissibility of the repons of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Mark Montgomery, M.D., is overruled.            CIGA contends that that there is no jurisdiction to award the benefits for the 1998 date of injury, that the WCJ did not have the power to amend the issues presented at trial, that CIGA’s right to due process was violated when the issues were amended, that the WCJ lacked thestatutory authority to act, that the doctrine of estoppel prohibits applicant from adding a claim of injury to the left upper extremity injury, that development of the record is required, that the parties stipulated that the right upper extremity injury was not an issue, that the parties arc bound to their , stipulation, that the WCJ may not unilaterally dismiss the parties’ stipulation, and that the AME report is not admissible.            We adopt and incorporate the “Introduction,” “Contentions” and “Facts” sections of the

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.