In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal and rescinded the order dated June 28, 2012, which would have deprived the defendant of the opportunity to obtain an evaluation by a qualified medical evaluator. The Board ordered the applicant to make an appointment with the remaining QME and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

FOOD 4 LESS; SEDGWICK CMS SHAWNTAE PATT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASHAWNTAE PATT, Applicant,vs.FOOD 4 LESS; SEDGWICK CMS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7646308(Oxnard District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVALAND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order dated June 28, 2012, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered this matter continued to trial. Defendant contends the order would deprive it of the opportunity to obtain an evaluation by a qualified medical evaluator (QME) pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.2.1 Applicant has filed an answer.            Applicant, while employed as a cashier from November 24, 2008, through May 6, 201 10, sustained an industrial injury to her psyche. In the Findings, Award and Orders dated August 30, 2011, the WCJ found that applicant had sustained an industrial injury and awarded temporary disability indemnity and medical treatment. He found that there was no substantial evidence on the issue of permanent disability. He ordered that the parties develop the record on the issue of applicant’s permanent and stationary date and deferred issues of permanent disability and apportionment. Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration from that decision which was denied on November 3, 2011.            On or about November 1, 2011, applicant’s treating physician, Dr. Curtis apparently issued a report2 in which he found applicant’s condition to be permanent and stationary. Defendant objected to 1 Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Labor Code.2 The report is not in EAMS. , the report by letter dated December 5, 2011, and requested a panel of QMEs, which issued on March 5, 2012. Each party struck one doctor from the panel. Applicant then decided that defendant was not entitled to a QME and refused to schedule an appointment with the remainin

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.