News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

DONNA FUNCHEON vs. SAN LEANDRO HOSPITAL; CNA CLAIMS PLUS; AMERICAN CASUALTY; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

SAN LEANDRO HOSPITAL; CNA CLAIMS PLUS; AMERICAN CASUALTY; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. DONNA FUNCHEON WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADONNA FUNCHEON, Applicant,vs.SAN LEANDRO HOSPITAL; CNA CLAIMS PLUS; AMERICAN CASUALTY;ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Defendants.Case No. ADJ2103088 (OAK 0267250)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant Zurich American Insurance petitions for reconsideration of the Order for Attorney Fees served on August 16, 2012. In that Order, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered defendant to pay applicant’s counsel, Brian J. Thornton, fees of $181,883.97 pursuant to the May 17, 2012 Amended Findings, Award, and Order in which applicant was found permanently totally disabled. In the August 16, 2012 Order, the WCJ also ordered applicant’s weekly permanent disability indemnity payments reduced to $379.95, after commutation.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in awarding attorneys’ fees, because defendant petitioned for a writ of review of our July 26, 2012 Order Denying Reconsideration of the underlying May 17, 2012 award in favor of applicant. Defendant argues, in essence, that filing a Petition for Writ on September 10, 2012 stayed the effect of the WCJ’s earlier August 16, 2012 Order.            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and applicant’s Answer, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report). For the reasons stated in the Report, which we hereby adopt and incorporate by reference, and for the reasons set forth below, we will deny the Petition.            Filing a writ petition does not stay or suspend the effect of the disputed WCAB decision. (Lab. Code § 5956; Diggle v. Sierra Sands Unified Sch. Dist. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1480, 1484 (Appeals Board Significant Panel Decision.) But as a practical matter, defendant does not need to be co

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Get exclusive access to in-debt interviews.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *