William Thure vs. Cowelco; Continental Casualty Company

This case involves William Thure, an iron worker, who sought workers' compensation for injuries he sustained while working for Cowelco and Continental Casualty Company. Thure claimed that he had incurred industrial injury in the form of abdominal hernia, hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy and heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes and headaches. The parties stipulated to an interim award of 65% permanent disability due to orthopedic and hearing loss injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Thure's petition for reconsideration of the June 9, 2010 Findings and Award (and Orders) of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, which found that Thure had 8% permanent disability after apportionment, and a need for

Cowelco; Continental Casualty Company William Thure WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAWILLIAM THURE, Applicant,vs.COWELCO; CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant,Case Nos. ADJ2241960; ADJ822337OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 9, 2010 Findings And Award (And Orders) of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who found in pertinent part that applicant incurred industrial injury in the form of abdominal hernia, hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy and heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes and headaches while working for defendant as an iron worker during the period September 1997 to July 4, 1998. causing 8% permanent disability after apportionment, and a need for medical ircarmcnt. The parties earlier stipulated on August 3. 2006 to the entry of an ‘‘interim award” of 65% permanent disability caused by admitted industrial injury to applicant’s back, neck and hearing while in that employ.            Applicant contends that the reporting of the regular physician selected by a WCJ to develop the record. Mark Hyman. M.D.. is based upon incorrect facts, does not properly address the cumulative trauma injury claimed by applicant, and does not properly address the issue of apportionment. Applicant further contends that he was denied due process because the issue of permanent disability was not tried until after the law on apportionment changed following the passage of Senate Bill 899 in April 2004, notwithstanding his effort to have the case tried beforethat date. , We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the allegations of applicant’s petition for reconsideration and the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) with respect thereto. For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, which is incorporated by this reference, and for the reasons below, we deny reconsideration.            Applicant worked as an ironwo

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.