Michael Benko, vs. Emcor/marelich Mechanical And Specialty Risk Services, Et Al.,

This case is about Michael Benko, an employee of EMCOR/MARELICH MECHANICAL and SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, who sustained an industrial injury to his low back while employed as a plumber on August 12, 2004. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in the case. After reconsideration, the Board rescinded the Findings and Award and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. The Board noted that the parties waived the requirements of Labor Code §5313, and that the issue of the Employment Development Department's lien could be addressed upon return of the matter to the trial level.

EMCOR/MARELICH MECHANICAL and SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, et al., MICHAEL BENKO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMICHAEL BENKO, Applicant,vs.EMCOR/MARELICH MECHANICAL andSPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, et al., Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ515661 (OAK 0320944)ADJ1552296 (OAK 0313467)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We previously granted defendant’s petition for reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case.1 This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award filed and served on August 14, 2007, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a plumber on August 12, 2004, and during the cumulative trauma period ending October 2004, sustained industrial injury to his low back, causing 37% permanent disability and need for further medical treatment. The WCJ found, “The parties have waived the requirements of Labor Code §5313, therefore there will be no formal Minutes of Hearing or Summary of Evidence.”            Defendant contended the WCJ erred in finding 37% permanent disability and in failing.to address the lien of the Employment Development Department (EDD).            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, applicant’s Answer, and the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report). Both parties submitted ; supplemental pleadings, which were neither requested nor approved. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848.) 1Commissioner O’Brien was on the panel that granted reconsideration in this case. Since his term has expired, another panel member has been assigned to take his place. ,             For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the Findings and Award and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.            Applicant’s injuries were admitted, and defendant provided benefits. At trial on March 1, 2007

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.