Pedro Sotelo, vs. Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. Dba Pirate Staffing, Inc.; California Insurance Guarantee Association For Lumbermen Underwriting Alliance In Liquidation; Sedgwick,

In this case, Pedro Sotelo was an applicant who claimed injury to his low back, neck, and right shoulder while employed as a warehouseman for Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. The defendant accepted liability for injury to the low back, but disputed injury to the neck and right shoulder. The parties agreed to use Dr. David Pechman as the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME). The WCJ found that Sotelo had sustained injury to the low back, neck, and right shoulder, but reserved jurisdiction over the issues of permanent disability and apportionment and struck the reports of the AME. The defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued by the WCJ,

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. dba Pirate Staffing, Inc.; California Insurance Guarantee Association For Lumbermen Underwriting Alliance in liquidation; Sedgwick, Pedro Sotelo, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPEDRO SOTELO, Applicant,vs.TRI-STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC. dba PIRATE STAFFING, INC.; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR LUMBERMEN’S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE in liquidation; SEDGWICK,Defendants.Case No. ADJ9473303(Long Beach District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 10, 2017. By the F&A, the WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained injury to his low back, neck and right shoulder. The WCJ reserved jurisdiction over the issues of permanent disability and apportionment and struck the reports of the agreed medical evaluator (AME), David Pechman, M.D.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by deferring the issues of permanent disability and apportionment rather than sending Dr. Pechman’s reports to the rater with rating instructions. Defendant further contends that the matter should be submitted on these issues based on the reports of Dr. Pechman with a resulting finding of zero permanent impairment.            We received an answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. Defendant submitted a supplemental pleading in response to applicant’s answer and the WCJ’s Report. Defendant did not seek approval from the Appeals Board prior io submitting this supplemental pleading as required by WCAB Rule 10848. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848.) Accordingly, we do not accept this pleading and will not consider it in addressing defendant’s Petition./// ,             We have considered

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.