Bakersfield

and ADJ4407215 (BAK 0151114) is a case in which Frank Torres, an applicant, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award issued in ADJ4407215 on September 5, 2012, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant sustained 1% permanent disability as a result of an industrial cumulative trauma injury to his left knee over the period of his employment as a probation officer through November 26, 2004. The WCJ found applicant did not sustain injury to his right ankle and was not in need of further medical treatment to cure and relieve him from the effects of the injury to his left knee. The WCJ granted reconsideration to amend the Findings and Award to award further medical

In this case, Sara Cazares filed a petition for removal against First Transit, Removal Inc., administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely, as it was filed after the 20-day deadline, and also because it lacked the required verification. Even if the petition had been timely, it would have been denied on the merits due to a lack of significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Patsy Vido against Hancock Fabrics and Ace American Insurance Company, administered by Esis. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the allegations and the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge and denied the Petition for Reconsideration. The decision was dated and filed at San Francisco, California on September 22, 2017.

This case involves Nelson Zaldana, an applicant, and Cali Concrete, Inc. and Amtrust North America, defendants. Zaldana sought removal of the August 7, 2020 Minutes of Hearing, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) set the case for a remote video trial. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report), recommending that the Petition be denied. The Appeals Board considered the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and reviewed the record in this matter. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Ruben Fuentes against IHSS County of Kern. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied the petition for removal, as the petition was an intermediate procedural order that did not determine any substantive right or liability and did not determine a threshold issue. Removal was denied as the petitioner did not show that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and did not demonstrate that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issued.

In this case, Chevron Corporation, self-insured and administered by Broadspire, was sued by Limin Gao for a psyche injury sustained while employed by Chevron. Gao provided in-person testimony, both direct and on cross-examination, flying in from her current residence in Ontario, Canada in order to do so. The trial was continued to June 9, 2020, with in-person testimony contemplated from several defense witnesses. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, WCAB District Offices stopped conducting in-person trials as of March 16, 2020. Gao filed a petition to allow remote testimony, while Chevron objected, requesting a continuance until in-person testimony could safely be provided. On August 25, 2020

In this case, Marcelo Rodriguez filed a Petition for Reconsideration against Panda Wok and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the petition was untimely and dismissed it. The Board noted that the petition must be filed within 25 days of the decision being served, and that proof of mailing is insufficient. The Board also noted that the time limit is jurisdictional and they have no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition.

In this case, Juan Barragan, a correctional officer, suffered a heart attack during the period he was employed. The California Labor Code section 3212.2 creates a rebuttable presumption that any “heart trouble” developing or manifesting itself while a worker is employed as a correctional officer arises out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ’s decision, and returned this matter to the trial level for further development of the medical record and decision. The reporting physician must render an opinion constituting substantial medical evidence regarding whether work activities during the cumulative injury period in question were a contributing cause of applicant’s heart trouble.

: This case involves Alfred Hunt, an applicant, and Cemex; National Union Fire Insurance Company C/O Gallagher Bassett, the defendant. The defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 11, 2018, which determined that the applicant sustained an injury to his low back while employed by the defendant as a cement truck driver on December 30, 2015. The WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommended that the defendant’s petition for reconsideration be denied. The Appeals Board affirmed the F&O, finding that the applicant had met his burden of proving that he sustained an injury arising out of

In this case, Martin Amador, an employee of Cal Central Harvesting, filed a workers’ compensation claim for an injury to his back, lower extremities, thoracic lumbar, and psyche. Lien claimant Citywide Scanning sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Order, and Award (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 10, 2019, which found that lien claimant provided medical-legal discovery services reasonably valued at $540.00 and awarded lien claimant $540.00 for its copying services plus a 10% penalty and interest at the rate of 7%. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the F&O, except amended Finding 6