Susan Ferguson, vs. Monterey Peninsula Country Club; Sedgwick Cms, Administered By Ciga,

In this case, the Monterey Peninsula Country Club and Sedgwick CMS, administered by CIGA, were found to be liable for retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) to Susan Ferguson, an executive assistant who sustained industrial injury to her right hand and wrist, bilateral upper extremities, neck, and upper and lower back, causing 26% permanent disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's August 10, 2009 decision, finding that applicant's claim for VRMA was not barred by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, and instead found that applicant was not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits because her rights to such benefits did not vest before the January 1, 2009 effective date of the repeal of

MONTEREY PENINSULA COUNTRY CLUB; SEDGWICK CMS, Administered By CIGA, SUSAN FERGUSON, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASUSAN FERGUSON, Applicant,vs.MONTEREY PENINSULA COUNTRY CLUB; SEDGWICK CMS, Administered By CIGA, Defendant.Case Nos. ADJ4386818 (SAL 0091744)ADJ2744571 (SAL 0087231)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 10, 2009, wherein the WCJ granted applicant’s appeal from the June 1, 2005 Determination and Order of the Rehabilitation Unit and found that applicant is entitled to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) at the delay rate from August 6, 2002 through May 9, 2005. Previously, the WCJ found, based on the parties’ stipulations, that applicant, while employed as an executive assistant through February 6, 2001, sustained industrial injury to her right hand and wrist, bilateral upper extremities, neck, and upper and lower back, causing 26% permanent disability.            Defendant contends the WCJ erred in finding that applicant’s claim for VRMA was not barred by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5,1 arguing that applicant’s rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits had not vested as of January 1, 2009 because it still had a right to seek appellate review until January 26, 2009. Defendant also contends that there was no final order in effect on January 1, 2009, arguing that the parties had been ordered to adjust the specific amounts of retroactive VRMA. 1Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. ,             We have considered the petition for reconsideration and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Applicant filed an answer. The WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the petition be denied.            Based on

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.