Refugio Hidalgo, vs. Falcon Roofing,

is a case in which Refugio Hidalgo, an employee of Falcon Roofing, sought reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award issued in April 2009. The Award found that Hidalgo had sustained industrial injury to his jaw in the form of TMJ, in addition to the admitted injuries to his spine, chin and right major upper extremity, on October 27, 2004, while employed as a roofer by Falcon Roofing. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Hidalgo's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the Amended Findings and Award, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to address whether Hidalgo had established that the permanent disability rating did not accurately reflect his diminished future earning capacity.

FALCON ROOFING, REFUGIO HIDALGO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAREFUGIO HIDALGO,OPINION AND ORDER Applicant,vs.FALCON ROOFING, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3470129 (SAC 0343138)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER 7 RECONSIDERATION            Applicant, Refugio Higaldo, seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award, issued, April 17, 2009, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant sustained industrial injury to his jaw in the form of TMJ, in addition to the admitted injuries to his spine, chin and right major upper extremity, on October 27, 2004, while employed as a roofer by Falcon Roofing. As a result of his injury, applicant was found to have sustained temporary total disability from October 28, 2004 to July 6, 2005, and 32% permanent disability.            Applicant first contests the WCJ’s use of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule to rate his permanent disability, asserting that two exceptions allowing the use of the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule apply; that defendant failed to provide the requisite notice pursuant toLabor Code section 4061, when applicant was released to, and did return to, modified work. Second, applicant asserts an exception exists because a medical report by a treating doctor prior to January 1, 2005, documented the existence of permanent disability. Secondly, applicant contends that the permanent disability rating fails to accurately reflect his wage loss, and the evidence from a vocational counselor rebuts the scheduled rating based upon calculations of his diminished future earning capacity. Applicant further asserts that adjustments in the proposed 2009 rating schedule shows that the 2005 rating schedule is not complete and accurate for compensating spinal injuries. , Next, applicant asserts that the assigned occupational group number was inaccurate given the arduous nature of applicant’s work, as testified to by the disab

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.