Patrick Estrada vs. Aitken Equipment And Repair; Clarendon National Insurance, Administered By American All Risk Loss Administrators

In this case, Patrick Estrada, an employee of Aitken Equipment and Repair, and Clarendon National Insurance, administered by American All Risk Loss Administrators, sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained while employed from March 18, 2003 through March 18, 2004. The parties reached a stipulated Award on February 3, 2010, and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that defendants were liable for interest on the Employment Development Department (EDD) lien amount. The defendants sought reconsideration, arguing that the WCAB erred in ordering them to pay the EDD interest, and that if any interest was owed to the EDD, it would be payable by the applicant, not defendants. The WCAB

Aitken Equipment And Repair; Clarendon National Insurance, administered by American All Risk Loss Administrators Patrick Estrada WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPATRICK ESTRADA Applicant,vs.AITKEN EQUIPMENT AND REPAIR; CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE, administered by AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ1025641 (OXN 0137996)ADJ3304480 (OXN 0136581)OPINION AND ORDERS DENYING RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING REMOVAL ON APPEALS BOARD MOTION AND NOTICE OF INTENTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS            Defendants, Aitken Equipment and Repair and Clarendon National Insurance, through their third party administrator, American All Risk Loss Administrators, seek reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 23, 2011. The WCJ found that applicant, while employed from March 18, 2003 through March 18, 2004 (ADJ1025641), and on March 18, 2004 (ADJ3304480), sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment, which was resolved by stipulated Award on February 3, 2010. The WCJ found that defendants are “liable for interest on the Employment Development Department [EDD] lien amount over and above any other benefit owed or paid.” Defendants contend, pursuant to the parties’ stipulations and Labor Code section 4904(c), that (1) the WCJ erred in ordering them to pay the EDD interest; and (2) if any interest is owed to the EDD, it would be payable by the applicant, not defendants.            Based on our review of the entire record, and for the reasons stated by the WCJ in his Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (report), which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. In addition, we note that with respect the stipulations referred to by defendant in their petition, and which formed the basis of the February 3, 2010 stipulated Award, the EDD was not a party to these stipulations,1 and therefore is not bound by them.

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.