Ricardo Salinas, vs. Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc.; State National Insurance Company, Administered By Packard Claims Administration,

In this case, Ricardo Salinas was injured while working as a framer for Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. He sustained an injury to his back, left hip, and psyche. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the Findings of Fact issued on June 17, 2016, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the injury to the psyche was compensable, but deferred the issue of permanent disability.

Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc.; State National Insurance Company, administered by Packard Claims Administration, Ricardo Salinas, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARICARDO SALINAS, Applicant,VS. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.; STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION,Defendants.Case No. ADJ8815528(Anaheim District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We previously granted applicant‘s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on June 17, 2016, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in order to further study the factual and legal issues. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the finding that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his back and left hip. The WCJ did not issue a finding on the issue of injury to psyche but found that applicant is not entitled to an increase in permanent disability for any psychiatric disorder arising out of the physical injury pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4660.1.            Applicant contends that his psychiatric injury was caused by a violent act and constituted a catastrophic injury, thus entitling him to increased permanent disability.2 1 All future references are to the Labor Code unless noted.2 In applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration and in defendant’s answer, the parties assume that the issue of AOE/COE to applicant’s psyche was decided in applicant’s favor based on the language in the WC1’s Opinion, which finds that applicant’s injury was caused by a sudden and extraordinary event of employment. Although the WCJ states in the Opinion that applicant’s injury was sudden and extraordinary and, thus, compensable under section 3208.3, the WCJ neglected to issue a Finding of Fact. As neither party contests the compensability of psychiatric injury and the sole issue raised o

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.