Mariana Contreras (mariana Contreras Madrigal) vs. 99 Cents Stores, Permissibly Self-insured; Administered By Southern California Risk Management Associates

This case is about Mariana Contreras, who was employed as a packer on February 16, 2005, and sustained an industrial injury to her neck, hands, wrists, shoulders and psyche. The parties utilized Lawrence Feiwell, M.D., as an agreed medical examiner (AME) in orthopedics, who found that applicant had attained maximal medical improvement (MMI) status with residual disability. The parties also agreed to utilize Dennis Nchamen, M.D., as an AME in psychiatry, who provided applicant with a 12% WPI and a OAF score of 62, based on claim for a specific injury and cumulative trauma. The matter proceeded to trial, and the WCJ referred the matter to the Disability Evaluation Unit

99 Cents Stores, Permissibly Self-Insured; Administered by Southern California Risk Management Associates Mariana Contreras (Mariana Contreras Madrigal) WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARIANA CONTRERAS (MARIANA CONTRERAS MADRIGAL), Applicant,vs.99 CENTS STORES, Permissibly Self-Insured; Administered by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ2951251; ADJ405202 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 7, 2010, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a packer on February 16, 2005, sustained industrial injury to her neck, hands, wrists, shoulders and psyche, causing 57% permanent disability. In the June 8, 2010 Opinion on Decision, the WCJ found that defendant did not object to a recommended rating by the disability evaluation specialist (rater) nor did the defendant file a timely request for cross- examination of the rater.            Defendant contends the WCJ erred in finding that it did not object to the recommended rating and did not request cross-examination of the rater, arguing that it filed rebuttal evidence in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) on May 17, 2010 that was apparently overlooked by the WCJ. Defendant contends in essence that it was therefore denied due process of law.            We have considered the petition for reconsideration and we have reviewed the record in this matter. An answer was received. No Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration has been filed because the WCJ is on extended leave. ,             For the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the June 7, 2010 Findings and Award, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by a WCJ.FACTS            As relevant here, applicant sustained an

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.