Mario Alberto Galindo, vs. Jose Navarro, General Contractor; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

(SDO 0346088)This case is about Jose Navarro, a general contractor, and the State Compensation Insurance Fund. The case was heard by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, who granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and ordered the case to be returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the record lacked substantial evidence to support a decision on whether the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his lungs, and ordered the parties to try to agree on an Agreed Medical Evaluator to address the issue.

JOSE NAVARRO, GENERAL CONTRACTOR; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MARIO ALBERTO GALINDO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARIO ALBERTO GALINDO, Applicant,vs.JOSE NAVARRO, GENERAL CONTRACTOR; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3517051 (SDO 0346088)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 10, 2009, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a carpenter during the period from approximately August 20, 2005 through September 1, 2005, sustained industrial injury to his lungs and awarded further medical treatment. The WCJ also ordered that all remaining issues, including whether applicant sustained an industrial injury to his psyche, temporary disability, permanent disability, and self- procured medical treatment, were deferred.            In its Petition for Reconsideration, defendant contends that the WCJ erred in relying on the opinion of James R. Vevaina, M.D., on the basis of his medical specialization in pulmonology. Defendant argues that Dr. Vevaina’s medical opinion was not based on his physical examination of applicant at the time of his report, but was the result of his subjective memories of prior evaluations of applicant as he had not provided medical treatment to applicant for some time. Defendant also argues that Dr. Vevaina’s review of the medical record is incomplete and cursory, and that his findings regarding causation do not constitute substantial evidence because they are not stated with reasonable medical probability, are conclusory, and are contradictory. Defendant further contends that the WCJ erred in finding that the opinion of , Richard M. Luros, M.D., was not substantial evidence as he relied on an inaccurate history1 and his opinion was based mainly on the lack of any corroborati

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.