Santa Ana

This case involves a dispute between Joey M. Costa, the applicant, and Hardy Diagnostic and State Compensation Insurance Fund, the defendant, over the reimbursement of costs for the testimony and report of a vocational rehabilitation expert. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration in order to further study the factual and legal issues and ultimately reversed the WCJ’s decision, allowing the costs of the expert’s testimony and report.

This case involves a dispute between Joey M. Costa, the applicant, and Hardy Diagnostic and State Compensation Insurance Fund, the defendant, over the reimbursement of costs for the testimony and report of a vocational rehabilitation expert. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration in order to further study the factual and legal issues and ultimately reversed the …

JOEY M. COSTA, vs. HARDY DIAGNOSTIC And STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Read More »

In this case, Donna Smith was employed by Master Financial and sustained an admitted industrial injury to her upper extremities during a period through September 30, 2005. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award of June 25, 2008, to further study the issues. The Board ultimately rescinded the Findings of Fact and Award and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision that will include, at least, an express ruling (either as a finding of fact or an order) regarding defendant’s objection to the admissibility of Dr. Caputo’s May 31, 2007 report. This will also allow the WCJ and parties an opportunity to reconsider the remaining issues raised by the parties for

In this case, Joshua Faller, an installation manager, was found to have sustained an industrial injury to his back, left leg, and psyche that caused temporary disability from August 1, 2005 to November 1, 2005 and from July 28, 2008 to the present. The defendant sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing that the finding was not supported by substantial medical evidence. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the decision to defer the issue of temporary disability from July 28, 2008 and continuing, and otherwise affirmed the WCJ’s decision.

ADJ2923354 (ANA0305541)

In this case, Alan Young was denied Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIF) benefits due to not meeting the 70% permanent disability eligibility threshold established by Labor Code section 4751.1. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge, finding that Young’s permanent disability at the time of his subsequent injury was 11 3⁄4%, which was below the 70% threshold.

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal filed by Defendant Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The Petition for Removal was regarding the December 1, 2020 Minute Order setting these matters for trial issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge. The Board found that there were no orders in the record for the defendant to recalculate the applicant’s temporary disability rate, pay temporary disability indemnity and penalties, reimburse the Employment Development Department, or utilize an agreed medical examiner or cross-examine the panel qualified medical examiner. The cases were instead set for trial on February 8, 2021. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed.

is a case in which Sean Bahman Abbasi, the applicant, filed a petition for reconsideration against Steadfast Management Company and American Zurich Insurance Company, the defendants. The WCJ found that the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the right arm, nor a compensable consequence injury to the psyche. The WCJ also found that the applicant was employed by the employer for a period of total time less than six months within the meaning of California Labor Code Section 3208.3, and that the applicant’s alleged psychiatric injury was not caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition within the meaning of California Labor Code Section 3208.3. The Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

University Of California Irvine, administered by Sedgwick Maria De Inga WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIAMARIA DE INGA, Applicantvs.UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE, administered by SEDGWICK, DefendantsAdjudication Number: ADJ9154863 Santa Ana District OfficeOPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report and …

Maria De Inga vs. University Of California Irvine, Administered By Sedgwick Read More »

This case involves Jabari Cole, who sustained an injury to his right shoulder, right arm, neck, and upper back while working as a warehouse worker for Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Inc. from 1998 to 2014. The employer, ACE American Insurance Company, did not pay temporary total disability indemnity because the claim was initially not accepted. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, finding that the medical evidence established that the applicant was temporarily partially disabled from 2013 until 2018 when the medical condition reached maximum medical improvement. The Board also found that the employer was unable to accommodate the work restrictions and that the severance package did not constitute salary continuation and did not affect the employer’s liability for workers’ compensation benefits.

In this case, Ernesto Noriega appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for reconsideration of an award, order, or decision. The Board considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge, and the contents of the WCJ’s Opinion on Decision. The Board determined that the awards, orders, and decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence such as medical opinion and/or testimony in light of the entire record. The Board found that the opinions of Sidney Levine, M.D., and Thomas Harris, M.D., were not substantial medical evidence and did not support a finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course