Steve Reynolds, vs. Wyckoff Logging; State Icompensation Insurance Fund Insured Redding,

(RDG 0118288) is a case in which the defendant, Wyckoff Logging, sought reconsideration of an Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration issued on May 29, 2009. The original decision found that the applicant, Steve Reynolds, did not develop avascular necrosis as a compensable consequence of his July 24, 2004 industrial injury, and that medical treatment of avascular necrosis was not needed on an industrial basis. The reconsideration found that the medical opinion of George G. Glancz, M.D., on which the WCJ relied, did not constitute substantial evidence, and that the medical opinion of Brian Barber, M.D., did constitute substantial evidence. The

WYCKOFF LOGGING; STATE ICOMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED REDDING, STEVE REYNOLDS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASTEVE REYNOLDS, Applicant,vs.WYCKOFF LOGGING; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED REDDING, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ1142998 (RDG 0118288)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration issued on May 29, 2009, wherein we granted reconsideration and rescinded the Findings and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 16, 2009. In the March 16, 2009 decision, the WCJ found that applicant did not develop avascular necrosis as a compensable consequence of his July 24, 2004 industrial injury, and that medical treatment of avascular necrosis was not needed on an industrial basis. In our May 29, 2009 decision, we found that the medical opinion of George G. Glancz, M.D., on which the WCJ relied, did not constitute substantial evidence. We found that the medical opinion of Brian Barber, M.D., constituted substantial evidence, and we returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.            Defendant contends that we erred in finding that the medical opinion of Dr. Glancz did not constitute substantial evidence, arguing his opinion was based on a correct history of applicant’s accepted injury and that it constituted substantial evidence. Defendant contends we should have found that the WCJ correctly determined that the medical opinion of Dr. Glancz was more persuasive than that of Dr. Barber. No answer was received. ,             We have reviewed and considered the current petition for reconsideration, and the entire record in this case – as well as all of the arguments previously made. For the reasons stated in our May 29, 2009 decision and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny applicant’s petition for reconsideration.            As we noted, we a

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.