DARLENE VOGLEZON vs. MACY’S DEPARTMENT STORES, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves Macy's Department Stores, who is permissibly self-insured, and Darlene Voglezon, the applicant. Macy's Department Stores filed a petition seeking reconsideration and/or removal from the Orders, issued March 6, 2012, in which a workers' compensation administrative law judge appointed an independent bill reviewer to review the bills of ten lien claimants. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and granted removal, rescinding the WCJ's March 6, 2012 Order and finding the sums defendant paid to each of the lien claimants to be the reasonable value of their services.

MACY’S DEPARTMENT STORES, Permissibly Self-Insured DARLENE VOGLEZON WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADARLENE VOGLEZON, Applicant,vs.MACY’S DEPARTMENT STORES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3609822 (LAO 0826406)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING RECONSIDERATION, GRANTINGREMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Defendant, Macy’s Department Stores, permissibly self-insured, has filed a petition seeking reconsideration and/or removal from the Orders, issued March 6, 2012, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) appointed an independent bill reviewer to review the bills of ten lien claimants. The reviewer was given 60 days after receipt of the bills and other documentation to complete and serve his review.            Defendant contends the WCJ acted in excess of his authority in appointing an independent bill reviewer to review the bills of the listed lien claimants, where defendant’s evidence establishes that the amount it paid to the lien claimants was reasonable and lien claimants never attempted to controvert defendant’s evidence to meet their burden of proof to establish that the amount they billed was reasonable. Defendant further contends, through its alternative petition for removal, that it will suffer substantial prejudice and be irreparably harmed if the WCJ’s order is allowed to stand, as it has already obtained an independent bill reviewer who already testified to her bill review for each of the named lien claimants, and would have to pay an additional charge for a second independent bill reviewer, despite the fact that lien claimants have failed to present any evidence in support of their charges. Defendant requests that the order appointing an independent bill reviewer be rescinded and that a finding be made, based upon the evidence in the record, that the amount it paid lien claimants was reasonable. No answer to defendant’s petition has been filed. ,             Following our review of the

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.