Marina del Rey

GOURMETS FRESH PASTA; GALLAGHER BASSETT, INC. CORNELIO CAMPOS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACORNELIO CAMPOS, Applicantvs.GOURMETS FRESH PASTA; GALLAGHER BASSETT, INC., DefendantCase No. ADJ7873223(Marina del Rey District Office) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONThis case involves a worker’s compensation claim filed by Cornelio Campos against Gourmets Fresh Pasta and Gallagher Bassett, Inc. The worker’s compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) recommended that the Petition for Rec

In this case, the UCLA Medical Center and Sedgwick, CMS filed a Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order dated August 20, 2012, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) continued the case to trial. The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Removal and rescinded the Order, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decisions by the WCJ. The Board also recommended that the case be set for a mandatory settlement conference in about 90 days and that discovery remain open.

is a case in which Treville Dixon, the applicant, was denied a lien claim by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Barrington Psychiatric Center (Barrington) petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ’s decision, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration. Barrington and defendant, Securitas Security Services, Inc., then participated in voluntary mediation and agreed to resolve Barrington’s lien in consideration of the payment of $1,250.00 by defendant. The Appeals Board then rescinded the WCJ’s Findings and Order and approved the lien settlement agreement.

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant’s petition for reconsideration of the May 28, 2014 Findings Of Fact, Award And Order of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge. The defendant’s attorneys had falsely alleged in the petition that the WCJ had engaged in judicial misconduct and unethical behavior with regard to the January 9, 2014 stipulation. The Appeals Board found that there was no violation of Canon 3(B)(7) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics and that the attorneys had acted in bad faith and frivolously. The Appeals Board issued a Notice of Intention to impose a sanction of $750 jointly and severally against the defendant’s attorneys.

In this case, Miguel Garcia filed a petition for reconsideration of a decision issued on July 31, 2017. The petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition. The defendant was reminded that all documents filed with the WCAB must be served on all parties. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

is a case in which Bilkiss Akhter, a parking lot attendant for Standard Parking in Los Angeles, alleged three injuries. At a Mandatory Settlement Conference, the judge set Applicant’s cases for trial on various issues including “parts of body injured” and temporary disability. Standard Parking then filed a Petition for Removal, claiming that not allowing permanent disability to be raised as an issue would cause prejudice, irreparable harm, and undue economic hardship. The Petition for Removal was denied, as the judge found that permanent disability could not be raised as an issue due to Labor Code §4061(i).

J&J Display, Inc.; SP Display, Inc., d/b/a J&J Display; Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund Abraham Arteaga WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIAABRAHAM ARTEAGA, Applicantvs.J&J DISPLAY, INC.; SP DISPLAY, INC., d/b/a J&J DISPLAY; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, DefendantsAdjudication Numbers: ADJ9226758 (MF); ADJ9226766; ADJ9227399 Marina Del Rey District OfficeOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We previously granted …

Abraham Arteaga vs. J&J Display, Inc.; SP Display, Inc., D/b/a J&J Display; Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund Read More »

In this case, the Appeals Board determined a fair and reasonable amount of appellate attorney’s fees for services rendered in connection with the defendant’s petition for writ of review to be $19,500. The Board considered the attorney’s time, effort, care, experience, skill and results in opposing the writ, as well as the complexity of the issues raised by the defendant. The Board also noted that the fee must be based on services rendered in connection with the petition for writ of review and that the fee must be reasonable.

is a case involving Entertainment Partners and insured and administered by AIG, in which Lonnie Haspel, the applicant, is challenging the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The Board denied the defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration, finding that the WCJ’s decision was a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal. The Board found that the applicant was entitled to a new qualified medical evaluator (QME) panel for the case, and that the petitioner had not demonstrated that significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted. The Board concluded that the decision issued by the Appeals Board addressed a hybrid of both threshold and interlocutory issues, and that the petitioner had not demonstrated that reconsideration would

In this case, Peoplease, LLC and National Interstate Insurance Company reached a proposed settlement of both claims via Compromise and Release. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant’s Petition for Removal of the order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge. The Board requested that in the future, the defendant should advise the Appeals Board and withdraw a petition if the dispute has been rendered moot.