Fresno

RONALD JOHNSON vs. RUAN TRANSPORTATION; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, Ronald Johnson is seeking reconsideration of a decision filed on May 22, 2014. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has granted the petition for reconsideration in order to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in the case. All further correspondence, objections, motions, requests and communications must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

JOSE LOPEZ vs. KAWEAH CONTAINER, INC.; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

KAWEAH CONTAINER, INC.; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY JOSE LOPEZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSE LOPEZ, Applicant,vs.KAWEAH CONTAINER, INC.; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. ADJ8760174(Fresno District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REMOVAL, GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION  Applicant seeks reconsideration and removal of the May 13, 2014 Findings of Fact and Orders  issued …

JOSE LOPEZ vs. KAWEAH CONTAINER, INC.; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY Read More »

Nicole Boragno, vs. State Of California, Cdcr- Central California Women’s Facility Chowchilla, Legally Uninsured; State Compensation Insurance Fund/state Contract Services, Adjusting Agency,

State Of California, Cdcr- Central California Women’S Facility Chowchilla, Legally Uninsured; State Compensation Insurance Fund/State Contract Services, Adjusting Agency, Nicole Boragno, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIANICOLE BORAGNO,Applicant,vs.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR- CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S FACILITY CHOWCHILLA, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency,Defendants.Case No. ADJ8691809(Fresno District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR …

Nicole Boragno, vs. State Of California, Cdcr- Central California Women’s Facility Chowchilla, Legally Uninsured; State Compensation Insurance Fund/state Contract Services, Adjusting Agency, Read More »

KAREN SWANSON vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured

FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured KAREN SWANSON WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKAREN SWANSON, Applicant,vs.FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant.Case Nos. ADJ7817116ADJ7875974(Fresno District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISIONAFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the September 6, 2012 Amended Findings and order1 wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant …

KAREN SWANSON vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured Read More »

ARTHUR LUCERO vs. CITY OF FRESNO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

This case involves Arthur Lucero, an applicant, and the City of Fresno, a permissibly self-insured entity administered by American All Risk Loss Administrators, the defendant. Lucero filed a Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind an Order dated August 7, 2012, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge found that Ajit Arora, M.D., is the panel qualified medical evaluator. Lucero argued that the defendant’s notice of intent to strike Dr. Cayton from the panel of QMEs was not sufficient to strike Dr. Cayton. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the defendant’s communication was sufficient notice of the strike.

Zenaida Salazar, vs. J. G. Boswell Company; Sedgwick Claims Management Services,

, J. G. Boswell Company and Sedgwick Claims Management Services were involved in a workers’ compensation case in which Zenaida Salazar was the applicant. Attorney Kyle Nielsen and The Nielsen Firm sought to disqualify the workers’ compensation administrative law judge, Geoffrey H. Sims, who issued a Findings and Order Re: Attorney’s Fees, on the grounds of bias. The Petition for Disqualification was denied as untimely and on its merits, and the court considered imposing sanctions against Nielsen.

Rosa Munoz vs. State Of California, Cdcr-california Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Legally Uninsured; State Compensation Insurance Fund/st Ate Contract Services, Adjusting Agency

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the State of California, CDCR-California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Legally Uninsured; State Compensation Insurance Fund/State Contract Services, Adjusting Agency against Rosa Munoz (Rosa Williams Munoz). The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, finding that the parties had stipulated to injury AOE/COE to neck, psyche, internal, shoulders, bladder, colon, arousal disorder, and left hand. The Board found that the parties’ stipulation should be accepted, even when the evidence was contrary, and that the argument that any such arousal disorder was secondary to orthopedic problems should not be allowed.

Jesus Suarez Ordaz, vs. Seaman Nurseries, Inc.; American Claims,

In this case, Seaman Nurseries, Inc. and American Claims were defendants and Jesus Suarez Ordaz was the applicant. The lien claimant, The Nielsen Firm, sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 5, 2017, which ordered the lien claimant to pay $5,550.00 to the Central Valley Injured Worker Legal Clinic (Central Valley) for legal fees and costs for frivolous and unreasonable conduct. The WCJ recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied, but the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition and amended the F&O to remove Central Valley’s legal fees and costs incurred in

Juan Santiago vs. WEST STAR NORTH DAIRY; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

In this case, Juan Santiago was awarded $9,537.14 in permanent disability advances from West Star North Dairy and Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies. The companies failed to secure a credit of the PDAs in the Compromise and Release (C&R) that was approved on August 12, 2019. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the companies’ petition for reconsideration, finding that the C&R did not provide for the deduction of PDAs and that the companies had no legal basis for unilaterally asserting a credit. The Board also found that the companies were subject to a 25% penalty pursuant to Labor Code section 5814 and interest pursuant to section 5800 on the unpaid amount.