San Diego

In this case, Harry Pifer filed a petition for reconsideration against La Mesa Appliance Company and the State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied removal, as the petition was not considered a “final” order and did not determine any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case. The supplemental petition and attachments were also rejected and not considered.

City Of Vista, Permissibly Self-Insured; and Adminsure Diamond Bar (Claims Administrator), Robert Gravlin, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROBERT GRAVLIN,Applicant,vs.CITY OF VISTA, Permissibly Self-Insured; and ADMINSURE DIAMOND BAR (Claims Administrator),Defendants.Case No. ADJ513626 (SDO 0296833)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We previously granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues. This is our Decision After Reconsideration.            Defendant, …

Robert Gravlin, vs. City Of Vista, Permissibly Self-Insured; And Adminsure Diamond Bar (Claims Administrator), Read More »

In this case, Richard Appleton applied for workers’ compensation benefits for a psychiatric injury he claimed to have sustained during the period August 15, 1995 to February 16, 1996. The arbitrator found that the applicant sustained an aggravation of his psychiatric injury during the cumulative period from August 15, 1995 to February 16, 1996 that contributed 20% to applicant’s overall psychiatric disability, need for treatment, and impairment. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) each sought reconsideration of the arbitrator’s decision. The Appeals Board denied Liberty Mutual’s petition for reconsideration and granted State Fund’s petition for reconsideration, rescinding the arbitrator’s decision and finding that the applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury arising out of

Redwood Town Court; Claim Quest, administered by SEDGWICK CMS Huong Le WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIAHUONG LE, Applicantvs.REDWOOD TOWN COURT; CLAIM QUEST, administered by SEDGWICK CMS, DefendantsAdjudication Number: ADJ2112125 (SDO 0335224) San Diego District OfficeOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We granted reconsideration in order to further study the factual and legal issues in this …

Huong Le vs. Redwood Town Court; Claim Quest, Administered By SEDGWICK CMS Read More »

Coronado Unified School District; administered by Athens Administrators Charlene Sturm WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACHARLENE STURM, Applicantvs.CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT;administered by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, DefendantsAdjudication Number: ADJ11260845San Diego District OfficeOPINION AND ORDERDENYING PETITIONFOR RECONSIDERATION            We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration, applicant’s answer and the contents of the Report of the workers’ compensation …

Charlene Sturm vs. Coronado Unified School District; Administered By Athens Administrators Read More »

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Scripps Health. The Board granted the petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues in the case and to enable them to issue a just and reasoned decision. All further correspondence, objections, motions, requests and communications relating to the petition must be filed with the Office of the Commissioners of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and not with any other district office. Any documents lodged in violation of this order will not be accepted or deemed filed.

Sharp Healthcare; Ace American Insurance Company Barrett Patin WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABARRETT PATIN, Applicant,vs.SHARP HEALTHCARE; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ11304564OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued by the workers* compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 24, 2019. In the Findings, the …

Barrett Patin vs. Sharp Healthcare; Ace American Insurance Company Read More »

In this case, Jose Luis Castellanos was employed by Cacique, Inc. as a delivery driver from August 2, 2012 through August 2, 2016. He claimed that he sustained an industrial injury to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, thoracic spine, both shoulders, both hands, both wrists, both ankles, and both feet. Cacique, Inc. denied the claim, citing post termination claim defense under section 3600(a)(10). The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that the post-termination claim defense did not bar the claim and that Cacique, Inc.’s denial was untimely.

This case is about Nancy Cobb, an applicant, and Biosite Incorporated and Hartford Insurance Company of the West, administered by York, defendants. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted removal in order to allow time to further study the factual and legal issues in the case. The Board ultimately affirmed the WCJ’s decision to exclude defendant’s exhibits BBB, DDD, and CCC and denied the request to disqualify the WCJ. The Board found that defendant had not demonstrated that the evidence could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to the settlement conference and that the WCJ had not expressed an inappropriate unqualified opinion or bias against defendant.