Doris Cortes vs. Bank Of The West, And Esis

In this case, the Bank of the West and ESIS requested that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescind an order from a presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) that required the Bank of the West to write to Dr. Santaniello of Fresno to request an Almaraz/Guzman assessment. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal and rescinded the order, and issued a notice of intention to approve the stipulations with request for award. The Appeals Board noted that the applicant had not objected to the stipulations and had not appeared at the mandatory settlement conference. If the applicant objects in writing within twenty days, the matter will be remanded to the trial level.

Bank Of The West, and ESIS Doris Cortes WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADORIS CORTES, Applicant,vs.BANK OF THE WEST, and ESIS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7412016OPINION AND ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL, AND NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPROVE STIPULATIONS WITH REQUEST FOR AWARD            Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order dated December 29, 2010, wherein the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that defendant “write to Dr. Santaniello of Fresno to request an Almaraz/Guzman assessment.”1 Defendant contends that there are no objective findings of impairment, evidence of neurologic impairment, clinical or radiographic findings that would require rebuttal to the zero percent rating in this case. We have not received an answer from applicant, who is not represented by an attorney.            Applicant, while employed as a customer service worker from March 24, 2007, through March 24, 200S, sustained an industrial injury to her wrists and elbows. She did not lose any time from work because of this injury. She was examined by John Santaniello, M.D., as qualified medical evaluator (QME) on May 20, 2010. Dr. Santaniello found no impairment for her bilateral elbows and no impairment for her bilateral hands and wrists. He recommended future medical treatment. 1            In Milpitas Unified School District v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837, 839], the Court of Appeal held that “the language of [Labor Code] section 4660 permits reliance on the entire [American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition], including the instructions on the use of clinical judgment, in deriving an impairment rating in a particular case.” See also Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services/Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Case

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.