CRESCENCIO REYNOSO vs. V. TERRAZAS CONTRACTING, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By YORK CLAIMS SERVICES

In this case, Crescencio Reynoso, an employee of V. Terrazas Contracting, sought reconsideration of a decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge that found that Reynoso had sustained an industrial injury to his right knee, leg, and ankle on January 7, 2011, and that he was required to treat within the employer's medical provider network. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, finding that the employer had made a valid offer of care through a valid medical provider network and that the employee had failed to comply with the requirements for accessing medical care.

V. TERRAZAS CONTRACTING, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By YORK CLAIMS SERVICES CRESCENCIO REYNOSO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACRESCENCIO REYNOSO, Applicant,vs.V. TERRAZAS CONTRACTING, Permissibly Self-Insured, AdjustedBy YORK CLAIMS SERVICES, Defendant.Case Nos. ADJ7849757(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 24, 2012, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a general laborer on January 7, 2011, sustained industrial injury to his right knee, leg and ankle. The WCJ also found that applicant is required to treat within the WellComp medical provider network (MPN), as it made a suitable offer of treatment. The WCJ found that applicant’s assertions that he is not required to treat within the employer’s MPN pursuant to Labor Code sections 3550 and 35511 are not meritorious.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that the employer made a proper offer of care through a valid MPN, that the defects in the notices posted at the workplace did not entitle applicant to treat with his current primary treating physician, that the WCJ erred when he did not allow applicant’s hearing representative to present evidence of an internet search performed by applicant’s counsel which was not previously identified at the pretrial conference, and that the WCJ erred in allowing admission of defense MPN documents as there allegedly were not previously served on applicant’s counsel.////// 1 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. ,             We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Defendant filed an Answer. The WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be denied.           

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.