Rachel Elizondo vs. State Of California, Department Of Motor Vehicles, Legally Uninsured And Adjusted By State Compensation Insurance Fund

In this case, the State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles, was found to be legally uninsured and adjusted by the State Compensation Insurance Fund. The applicant, Rachel Elizondo, was awarded a penalty of $37.50 under Labor Code section 5814, equal to 25% of the cost of a TENS unit, plus 25% of the cost of the batteries and electrodes purchased from July 10, 2007 to the date of the WCJ's decision. The WCJ also awarded attorney fees of $1,856.00 under Labor Code section 4607, for applicant's efforts to protect her prior award of further medical treatment. The defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order, arguing that such fees are not permitted

State Of California, Department Of Motor Vehicles, Legally Uninsured And Adjusted By State Compensation Insurance Fund Rachel Elizondo WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARACHEL ELIZONDO, Applicant,vs.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Legally Uninsured and Adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case No. SAC 0346199OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles, legally uninsured, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order, issued November 20, 2007, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant entitled to a S37.50 penalty pursuant to Labor Code section 5814, equal to 25% of the amount of a TENS unit, plus 25% of the cost of the batteries and electrodes purchased from July 10, 2007 to the date of the WCJ’s decision. The WCJ found defendant’s denial of the purchase of a TENS unit was unreasonably denied through Utilization Review. Applicant was also awarded attorney fees of $1,856.00 under Labor Code section 4607, for applicant’s efforts to protect her prior award of further medical treatment.1            Defendant contends the WCJ erred in awarding attorney fees under Labor Code section 4607, arguing that such fees are not permitted when applicant prevails in enforcing a medical 1 We now defendant has filed 2 separate petitions for reconsideration, both initially identifying the Findings. Award and Order of October 29, 2007 as the decision from which reconsideration is sought. The October 29. 2007 decision was vacated by the WCJ on November 20. 2007. under Board Rule 10859, and a new decision was issued on the same date. While defendant’s initial petition was filed on November 21, 2007. after the WCJ issued the second Findings, Award and Order, we recognize that defendant’s second petition, filed December 13, 2007 was intended to address the corrected Findings. Awa

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.