Pablo Orrala vs. Harris Ranch Inn & Restaurant, Permissibly Self-insured, Administered By Acclamation Insurance Management Services

In this case, Pablo Orrala, an employee of Harris Ranch Inn & Restaurant, suffered an idiopathic seizure while performing his duties as a baker and fell, hitting his head on the cement floor. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of the April 6, 2011 Finding and Order of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, which found that the injury to applicant's head arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found that the injury was compensable because it was caused by the impact of the employee's body with an object or surface of the employer's premises, and hence arose out of the employment, even though the fall may also have been a causal factor which had no connection

Harris Ranch Inn & Restaurant, permissibly self-insured, administered by Acclamation Insurance Management Services Pablo Orrala WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPABLO ORRALA, Applicant,vs.HARRIS RANCH INN & RESTAURANT, permissibly self-insured, administered by ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2536390 (SAL 0120964) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the April 6, 2011 Finding And Order of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who found that applicant “sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment” to his head on March 23, 2008, when he suffered an idiopathic seizure, fell and hit his head on the cement floor while working for defendant as a baker.1 The WCJ further found based upon the parties’ stipulation at trial that the injury caused 31% permanent disability after apportionment, and need for future medical treatment.            Defendant contends that the evidence does not support a finding that the injury to applicant’s head arose out of employment.            An answer was received and the WCJ provided a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report).            We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the allegations of defendant’s 1 Defendant’s original petition was timely filed but unverified. Thereafter defendant presented an “amended” petition with the same content as the first, but with an attached verification. Defendant’s amended petition is accepted for filing because it is verified, and reconsideration is not denied due to the lack of verification of the initial petition. (Wings West Airlines v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Nebelon) (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1047 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 609]; Lucena v. Diablo Auto Body (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1425 (writ den.).) , petition for reconsideration and the WCJ’s Report with respect thereto. For the reasons stated by the WCJ in his Report, which i

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.