Yolanda Ramirez, vs. On Line Power, Inc.; Clarendon National Insurance, Administered By American All Risk Loss Fresno,

This case is about Yolanda Ramirez, who was employed as a lead person on May 25, 1997 and sustained industrial injury to her right shoulder and right wrist. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and amended the decision to reflect that the defendant is entitled to credit for all permanent disability paid, that the issue of credit to the Employment Development Department is deferred, that the defendant is not liable for temporary disability after the applicant became permanently and stationary on March 3, 2005, and that the defendant is not liable for additional attorney's fees on the temporary disability.

ON LINE POWER, INC.; CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE, Administered By AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS FRESNO, YOLANDA RAMIREZ, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAYOLANDA RAMIREZ, Applicant,vs.ON LINE POWER, INC.; CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE, Administered By AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS FRESNO, Defendant.Case Nos. ADJ3673740 (AIIM 0099599)ADJ373537 (AHM 0103485)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings, Award and Orders issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 19, 2009, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a lead person on May 25, 1997, sustained industrial injury to her right shoulder and right wrist, causing 36% permanent disability. The WCJ also found that applicant is entitled to temporary total disability from March 4, 2005 to July 18, 2008, with credit allowed for any benefits paid. The WCJ found that the reasonable value of applicant’s attorney’s services is 15% of the temporary disability awarded. The WCJ further found that credit may be taken for permanent disability advances and the payments awarded to Employment Development Department (EDD), if not already credited against applicant’s temporary disability award.            Defendant contends the WCJ erred in awarding additional temporary disability beyond March 3, 2005, arguing that was the date applicant’s disability status became permanent and stationary (P&S), based on the medical reporting of applicant’s primary treating physician and the agreed medical examiner (AME). Defendant also contends that applicant is not entitled to continuing TDI pursuant to Appeals Board Rules 10462 and 10464, arguing that its notice of termination of temporary disability was a de facto petition to terminate. Defendant argues that , applicant should barred by the doctrines of laches and estoppel from raising the issue of additional temporary disability aft

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.