Rosalind Press vs. Los Angeles Unified School Disctrict, Permissibly Self-insured, Administered By Sedgwick Cms

In this case, the Los Angeles Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by Sedgwick CMS, denied the claim of Rosalind Press, a teacher who was injured on December 8, 2000, when a student sprayed her with a fire extinguisher. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the January 18, 2011 Findings and Award, rescinded the decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. The Board found that the WCJ's decision relied heavily on his opinion of the applicant's credibility, and that it was essential to review the April 13, 2010 Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence before issuing a decision.

Los Angeles Unified School Disctrict, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by Sedgwick CMS Rosalind Press WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROSALIND PRESS, Applicant,vs.LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISCTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2750886 (VNO 0423874)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING REMOVAL, GRANTING RECONSIDERATION, AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration and/or removal of the January 18, 2011 Findings and Award, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a teacher on December 8, 2000, sustained industrial injury resulting in psychosomatic disorder. The WCJ found that applicant’s injury caused permanent disability of 70 percent and need of further medical treatment.            Applicant contends the WCJ erred in finding 70 percent permanent disability, instead of 100 percent, arguing that the WCJ erred in apportioning 30 percent after relying on evidence that applicant is 100 percent permanently disabled “in accordance with the fact”; that he did not make a finding on apportionment and based his apportionment determination on evidence that was not substantial, competent, or admissible; that he improperly rejected substantial evidence of 100 percent permanent disability, such as the opinion of rheumatologist, Stuart Silverman, M.D.; that the WCJ misstated the evidence and the evidence does not support the findings; and that the WCJ’s denial of housekeeping services is not supported by the evidence.1 1            In fact, the WCJ made no finding regarding housekeeping services, but he stated in his Opinion on Decision that “it doesn’t appear that there is substantial medical evidence that would warrant an award of reimbursement to applicant for monies she spent having her house cleaned by other persons.” ,             We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the re

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.