Susan Dadvar, vs. Regis Hairstylist And Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., Adjusted By Rem,

This case involves a dispute between Susan Dadvar, an applicant, and Regis Hairstylist and Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., Adjusted by REM, the defendant. Dadvar claimed that she sustained industrial injury to her bilateral upper extremities during the cumulative trauma period ending December 27, 2000. The Rehabilitation Unit found that Dadvar was a Qualified Injured Worker and entitled to Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) per Temporary Disability (TD) at the daily rate from June 13, 2002. The WCJ found that Dadvar's average weekly earnings were based on 2001, the year after injury, when she earned $55,708.64, resulting in a TD rate of $714.21. The defendant sought

REGIS HAIRSTYLIST and ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Adjusted by REM, SUSAN DADVAR, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASUSAN DADVAR, Applicant,vs.REGIS HAIRSTYLIST and ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Adjusted by REM, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ3628897 (SJO 0253335)ADJ1121410 (SFO 0462353)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            On August 31, 2009, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues. This is our decision after reconsideration.            In the Findings and Award of June 9, 2009, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained industrial injury to her bilateral upper extremities during the cumulative trauma (CT) period ending December 27, 2000, that the Order of Rehabilitation of October 15, 2007 found that applicant was a QIW and entitled to VRMA “per TD at the daily rate from June 13, 2002,” that the Order was affirmed by the WCJ on July 29, 2008 and by the Appeals Board by Order Denying Reconsideration on September 23, 2008, that applicant’s average weekly earnings are based on 2001, the year after injury, when she earned $55,708.64, resulting in a TD rate of $714.21, and that defendant is not entitled to take credit for wages or wage loss against the VRMA award.            Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ’s decision, contending that the WCJ’s awards of July 29, 2008 and June 9, 2009 are not valid, enforceable awards because they were not final as of January 1, 2009, that the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 terminated any right to vocational rehabilitation benefits pursuant to orders or awards that were not final before January 1, 2009, that the WCJ incorrectly based applicant’s TD rate on her post-injury earnings rather than , Labor Code section 4453(c)(1), and that the WCJ exceed her authority in reversing her prior award that allowed a credit for wages earned against VRMA at the delay r

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.