Sebastian De Jesus, vs. Massoud Haji Jafari And Marco Corona; Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund,

In this case, Massoud Haji Jafari and Marco Corona were found to be uninsured employers and were taken to court by Sebastian De Jesus for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. The Board affirmed the original findings of fact numbers 1, 3, and 4, and ordered that the issue of employment be addressed on an expedited basis.

MASSOUD HAJI JAFARI and MARCO CORONA; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND, SEBASTIAN DE JESUS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASEBASTIAN DE JESUS, Applicant,vs.MASSOUD HAJI JAFARI and MARCO CORONA; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ684583 (RDG 0127672)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the July 13, 2009 Findings and Award and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained a dislocation of his left elbow as a result of an admitted industrial injury to his left elbow while employed by “either Marco Corona or MassoudJarari, neither of whom [sic] were legally insured for workers’ compensation.” Based on these findings, the WCJ made the following award: “AWARD IS MADE in favor of SEBASTIAN DE JESUS against MARCO CORONA and/or MASSOUD JAFARI; UEF as follows: [] All reasonable and necessary benefits, including but not limited to temporary disability benefits and further medical treatment to include surgery as recommended by the AME [portion of original in bold].”            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant suffered a dislocation of his left elbow as a result of the industrial injury arguing that the agreed medical examination (AME) report of Louis Dean, M.D., on which the WCJ relied is not substantial evidence and thatthe applicant’s trial testimony on the issue was not credible.            Applicant did not file an answer. The WCJ filed her Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration./// ,             Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated herein, we will grant reconsideration, rescind Finding of Fact No. 2 and the Award and Order issued by the WCJ on July 13, 2009, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a ne

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.