Scott Simons, vs. Superheat Services, Inc.; Specialty Risk Pleasanton,

In this case, Scott Simons filed a workers' compensation claim against Superheat Services, Inc. and Specialty Risk Pleasanton, alleging that he sustained industrial injuries to his right shoulder, left knee, left ankle, left thumb, right arm, and head, as well as a compensable consequence injury to his psyche, causing temporary total disability from November 8, 2002 through February 27, 2007, permanent total disability without apportionment, and the need for further medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the WCJ's decision was timely, that the psychiatric component of the permanent disability was rated correctly, that the defendant had failed to provide substantial medical evidence to support its claims, and that

SUPERHEAT SERVICES, INC.; SPECIALTY RISK PLEASANTON, SCOTT SIMONS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASCOTT SIMONS, Applicant,vs.SUPERHEAT SERVICES, INC.;SPECIALTY RISK PLEASANTON, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ1885105 (LAO 0822725)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award of April 10, 2009, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that on November 8, 2002, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right shoulder, left knee, left ankle, left thumb, right arm and head, as well as a compensable consequence injury to his psyche, causing temporary total disability (TTD) from November 8, 2002 through February 27, 2007, permanent total disability without apportionment, and the need for further medical treatment.            Defendant contends, in substance, that the WCJ erred in failing to address defendant’s right to a third-party credit, that the WCJ’s findings are arbitrary, unreasonable, and not supported by evidence in light of the entire record, that the reports of the medical evaluators relied upon by the WCJ are not substantial given the testimony presented by the parties at trial, and that facts submitted into evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, do not support the WCJ’s determination on the issue of apportionment.            Applicant filed an answer.            The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation. In that Report, the WCJ suggests that defendant’s petition for reconsideration is untimely. The WCJ is incorrect. The WCJ’s decision was served by mail on April 10, 2009, so defendant had twenty-five days from that time, i.e. until , May 5, 2009, in which to file a timely petition for reconsideration. (See 2 California Workers’ Compensation Practice 4th (C.E.B.) (Update June 2007) §21.21.) Although the WCJ’s decision issued from the Los Angeles District Office of the WCAB, defendant filed its petition in the Santa

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.