OSCAR GUEVARA vs. G&C MECHANICAL, Permissibly Self-Insured By BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES/BBSI, Adjusted By CORVEL

This case is about Oscar Guevara, an employee of G&C Mechanical, who claimed to have sustained an injury to his right knee/right medial meniscus while employed as a mechanic on December 9, 2009. The employer denied injury and provided no benefits to applicant. The case proceeded to trial, including the primary issues of injury arising out of and in the course of the employment (AOE/COE) and temporary disability from December 10, 2009 to the present and continuing. The parties submitted medical reports and testimony from the panel qualified medical examiner (QME) in orthopedics, James D. Mays, M.D., as well as reports from Concentra, Dr. Wilson, and physical therapist Kyle Cogg

G&C MECHANICAL, Permissibly Self-Insured By BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES/BBSI, Adjusted By CORVEL OSCAR GUEVARA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAOSCAR GUEVARA, Applicant,vs.G&C MECHANICAL, Permissibly Self-Insured By BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES/BBSI, Adjusted By CORVEL, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7242426OPINION AND DECISON AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We previously granted defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings, Award & Orders issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 5, 2011, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a mechanic on December 9, 2009, sustained industrial injury to his right knee/right medial meniscus, causing temporary disability from December 10, 2009 to the present and continuing.             In its Petition for Reconsideration, defendant contended the WCJ erred in finding that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of the employment and that it was liable for total temporary disability from December 10, 2009 to the present and continuing, arguing that the evidence presented at trial, i.e., applicant’s testimony and video taken on the date of injury, do not support the award. Defendant also contended that it has newly discovered evidence, consisting of sub rosa video of applicant, that was not available to it at the time of trial, and which establishes that applicant misled the medical examiner and that his daily activities were inconsistent with the WCJ’s finding of temporary disability.////// , We note that defendant has attempted to file, without our permission or request, an attachment with the Petition for Reconsideration. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848; 10856(e).1 The attachment, consisting of sub rosa video of applicant, has not been previously filed. Thus, it appears that defendant is attemp

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.