William Casto vs. Gene Watson Construction Commerce & Industry Insurance Comp Any By Chartis

(BAK 0145213)This case involves a dispute between William Casto, the applicant, and Gene Watson Construction, Commerce & Industry Insurance Company by Chartis, the defendants. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in the case. The Board found that the applicant was entitled to temporary disability indemnity from July 30, 2004 to February 24, 2005 and from November 5, 2005 to August 6, 2007, that the applicant's attorney was entitled to attorney's fees on the award of temporary disability indemnity, that the applicant was permanent and stationary on August 6, 2007, and that the 240-week cap in Labor Code section 4656(c)(3

GENE WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMP ANY BY CHARTIS WILLIAM CASTO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAWILLIAM CASTO, Applicant,vs.GENE WATSON CONSTRUCTION;COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCECOMP ANY BY CHARTIS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3722656 (BAK 0145213)OPINION AND DECISIONAFTERRECONSIDERATION            We granted applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration on July 7, 2014 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.            Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Award and Opinion on Decision (F&A) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 14, 2014. The WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant was entitled to temporary disability indemnity during the period from July 30, 2004 to February 24, 2005; that he became permanent and stationary on August 5, 2005; that defendant’s obligation to pay temporary disability indemnity ended on August 10, 2006, pursuant to the 104-week cap in Labor Code1 section 4656(c)(1); that he had a net recovery of $167,442.01 in his third-party civil suit; and that defendant’s negligence was a 50% cause of applicant’s injury.            Applicant contended that applicant was entitled to further temporary disability indemnity during the period from November 5, 2005 to August 6, 2007; and that the WCJ erred in finding that defendant was a 50% cause of applicant’s injury and in calculating the third party credit.            We received an Answer from defendant. We received a Report and Recommendation (Report) from the WCJ in response to the Petition for Reconsideration, recommending that the Petition be denied. 1 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. ,             We have reviewed the record and have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, for

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.