MYRNA MEDINA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Permissibly Self-Insured

is a case in which the defendant, County of Los Angeles, sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision that the applicant, Myrna Medina, had sustained an industrial cumulative injury from March 19, 2004 to December 14, 2011 while employed as an Eligibility Worker II, resulting in temporary disability from February 21, 2012 to the present and continuing. The WCJ denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, noting that the defendant had not raised due process or Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2 as issues for trial and had not submitted any evidence to support the allegations contained in its petition. The Appeals Board adopted and incorporated the WCJ's Report and denied the defendant's petition.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Permissibly Self-Insured MYRNA MEDINA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMYRNA MEDINA, Applicant,vs.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant.Case No. ADJ8343056(Van Nuys District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued August 14, 2012, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative injury from March 19, 2004 to December 14, 2011 while employed as an Eligibility Worker II, resulting in temporary disability from February 21, 2012 to the present and continuing. Applicant was also awarded further medical treatment for industrial injuries to her neck, right shoulder, right elbow, right wrist and right hand.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by making a finding regarding applicant’s injuries prior to allowing defendant to utilize the “AME/PQME process” pursuant to Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2 and that this deprived defendant of due process. Defendant also contends that the WCJ erred by relying upon the medical reports of Dr. Brourman and Dr. Hekmat because those reports did not constitute substantial medical evidence. Applicant filed an Answer.            In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ set forth the reasons for the decision and specifically noted that petitioner’s allegation, that defendant was unable to obtain a panel QME and that this issue was raised at trial (Petition, p. 2 1. 12), is false. The WCJ reported that this issue was never raised at trial, that a QME list had been issued but that defendant chose to abandon in its right to obtain medical evidence from a panel physician (Report, p. 1 & 2). ,             We have considered defendant’s petition and the WCJ’s response with respect thereto. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set f

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.