Olivia Huerta, vs. Gmp Laboratories; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

Olivia Huerta, an injured worker, was denied reimbursement for medical-legal expenses by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board granted reconsideration and reversed the decision, finding that Huerta had reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred medical-legal expense for which she was entitled to reimbursement. The Board ordered that the exact value of the three reports, along with any applicable penalty and interest, shall be adjusted by the parties or determined by the WCJ absent adjustment.

GMP LABORATORIES; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, OLIVIA HUERTA, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAOLIVIA HUERTA, Applicant,vs.GMP LABORATORIES; STATECOMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ2337190 (LAO 0829672)ADJ3193895 (LAO 0829673)ADJ187762 (LAO 0829674)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Lien Claimant, Dr. Elena Konstat, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award of February 2, 2009, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that Olivia Huerta, the injured worker, did not sustain industrial injury to her nervous system or psyche, and that Dr. Konstat, a licensed clinical psychologist, is entitled to $2,849.24 for reimbursement of her medical-legal lien.            medical reports as proper medical-legal expenses, that the WCJ erred in not awarding any penalty or interest, that the testimony of defendant’s lien negotiator, Ms. Perez, is not substantial evidence, that Dr. Konstat billed at proper rates for the three reports, that the WCJ erred in applying the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS), that the Compromise and Release (C&R) entered into by the injured worker and defendant supports the validity of Dr. Konstat’s lien, that Dr. Konstat’s stipulation with a co-defendant does not relieve State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) of liability, and that Dr. Konstat is “the only party in this entire case [who] received no compensation… even though she was the one who issued medical-legal reports to prove that the applicant sustained industrial psychological injury.”/// ,             We begin by noting that the injured worker’s claim of psychological injury was contested, and that Dr. Konstat apparently provided treatment as well as medical-legal reports. However, only the medical-legal reports dated June 22, 2004, December 24, 2004, and July 11, 2005 are at issue here. After trial, the WCJ allowed medical-legal reimbursement only for

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.