William Avrit, vs. California Dept Of Corrections; Scif State Employees,

In this case, William Avrit, an employee of the California Department of Corrections, sustained an industrial injury to his bilateral knees. Lien claimant, Nations Surgery Center, filed a lien for services rendered for outpatient arthroscopic surgery performed on April 10, 2003 and July 31, 2003. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the order of restitution, finding that the WCJ lacked statutory authority to award reimbursement and that SCIF had not established unjust enrichment by lien claimant. The petition for reimbursement was denied.

CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS; SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES, WILLIAM AVRIT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAWILLIAM AVRIT, Applicant,vs.CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS;SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2736713 (VNO 0375817)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Lien claimant, Nations Surgery Center, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award Re Restitution of Overpayment, issued August 28, 2009, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered Nations Surgery Center to repay defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), $1,020.00, representing the amount SCIF had paid beyond the amount found to be reasonable for the use of its ambulatory surgery center.            Lien claimant contends first that the WCJ, in ordering restitution, did not comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 5313, as he failed to cite any legal basis giving him the authority to order restitution of payments SCIF previously made to lien claimant. Second, lien claimant contends SCIF’s four year delay in seeking restitution for overpayment prevents them from relying on equity to justify their claim in the absence of proof of unjust enrichment by lien claimant. SCIF has filed an answer to lien claimant’s petition. The WCJ has prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration in which he concludes that the requirements of transactional stability mandate that the order of restitution be vacated. He further asserts that lien claimant’s petition for reconsideration should be dismissed as having been untimely filed.            Following our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth below, we shall grant , reconsideration to reverse the order of restitution.            At the outset, we note lien claimant’s petition appears to have been timely filed, as the proof of service indicates mailing to the parties on September 4, 2009, and hand-delivery to the Wor

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.