Peter Torcellini vs. “saturn Electric Inc., Permissibly Self- Insured

This case is about Peter Torcellini, an Underground Utility Tech, who suffered a heart attack while at work on July 10, 2007. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration filed by Saturn Electric Inc., the permissibly self-insured defendant, which argued that the injury did not arise out of the employment. The Board found that the medical report and deposition testimony of Dr. Richard Friedman, the Qualified Medical Evaluator, constituted substantial medical evidence that the heart attack was caused by a sudden stressful event related to the work, and that the opinion of the Agreed Medical Examiner, Dr. Kerri Nudleman, was not sufficient to overcome the QME's opinion.

“Saturn Electric Inc., Permissibly Self- Insured Peter Torcellini WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPETER TORCELLINI, Applicant,vs.SATURN ELECTRIC INC., Permissibly Self- Insured, Defendant.Case No. ADJ3147799OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, Satum Electric, permissibly self-insured, seeks reconsideration of the Finding of Fact, issued June 1, 2010, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant. Peter Torcellini sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment to his “circulatin’ system – heart attack, hypoxic brain injury,” while employed as an Underground Utility Tech on July 10, 2007.            Defendant contests the finding that applicant’s injury arose out of his employment, arguing first that the WCJ erred in relying upon the opinion of Dr. Friedman, the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), to determine that applicant’s cardiac anest was caused by his employment in the absence of evidence of a sudden stressful event. Second, defendant contends applicant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that his injury was caused by his employment, arguing that there was no evidence of a sudden stressful event to cause his cardiac arrest. Defendant argues that the QME’s opinion should not be followed because he assumed that the cardiac arrest was work related because it happened at work.            Applicant has filed an answer to defendant’s petition, and the WCJ has prepared a Repon and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration. , Following our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the I; Finding of Fact and will deny defendant’s petition for reconsideration.Background            Applicant claimed to have sustained an injure- arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment to his cardiovascular system, hypoxic brain injury and cognitive impair

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.