Maria Ocampo, vs. Greer Company; And Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,

In this case, Maria Ocampo was granted workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an admitted industrial injury to her neck and right shoulder, elbow, forearm, and wrist on August 27, 2007, while employed as an assembler by Greer Company. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the employer's insurer, argued that Ocampo was not entitled to obtain her medical treatment from outside of their medical provider network. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the employer had failed to provide reasonably necessary medical treatment as required by law, and thus Ocampo was entitled to obtain her medical treatment from outside of the network at the employer's expense.

GREER COMPANY; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MARIA OCAMPO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARIA OCAMPO, Applicant,vs.GREER COMPANY; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.Case No. ADJ2363674 (ANA 0405865)ADJ2676561 (ANA 0405866)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            On October 15, 2008, we granted defendant’s petition for reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award and Order of August 5, 2008, to further study the factual and legal issues presented. This is our Decision After Reconsideration.            In the August 5, 2008 Joint Findings and Award and Order, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in essence, that applicant sustained admitted industrial injuries to her neck and right shoulder, elbow, forearm, and wrist on (case number ANA 0405865) and during a period through (case number ANA 0405866) August 27, 2007, while employed as an assembler by Greer Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s insured on the dates of injury, and that the injuries caused temporary disability from December 15, 2007, through July 3, 2008, and a need for further medical treatment. The WCJ further found, in essence, that applicant is entitled to obtain her reasonably necessary medical treatment, at defendant’s expense, from Max H. Matos, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and a physician from outside of defendant’s medical provider network (MPN) because defendant did not properly notify applicant of her medical treatment options and rights within defendant’s MIPN.            In its petition for reconsideration, defendant contended that applicant is not entitled to obtain her medical treatment from outside of defendant’s MPN, arguing that it cured its initial MPN notice deficiency and provided the required notices to transfer applicant’s medical treatment into its MIPN. ,             Applicant filed an answer to defendant’s petition for reconsideration.I.            We have considered the allegations made in the petition

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.