ELOY MORENO-HERNANDEZ vs. SYSCO FOODS/FRESH POINT; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, Adjusted By GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

; ADJ7516174 is a case in which Eloy Moreno-Hernandez, an employee, is appealing an order from a presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) that he attend a second evaluation by a panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) and cancel an appointment with a chiropractic QME. The PWCJ had ordered the evaluation at a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) without the agreement of both parties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Removal, rescinded the Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

SYSCO FOODS/FRESH POINT; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, Adjusted by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES ELOY MORENO-HERNANDEZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAELOY MORENO-HERNANDEZ, Applicant,vs.SYSCO FOODS/FRESH POINT; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, Adjusted byGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7987503; ADJ7516174(San Francisco District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL ANDDECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Applicant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order dated March 5, 2012, wherein the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) ordered applicant to attend a second evaluation by Michael Charles, M.D., who had been designated as a panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) in ADJ7516174, and to cancel an appointment with a chiropractic QME. Applicant contends that the Order must be vacated because there is no proper record; that his “due process” rights were violated because he was prevented from going to trial, submitting evidence, and refuting defense evidence; that his “due process” rights were violated because he did not have the opportunity to disqualify the PWCJ pursuant to WCAB Rule 10453 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10453); and that the PWCJ did not have the power to decide this issue without consent of the parties. Applicant does not mention the merits of the Order.            Defendant has filed an Answer. Defendant contends that applicant “was adamant that the Judge decide on these petitions on the date of hearing since the appointments were approximately two weeks away…. [However, when the PWCJ indicated that she was inclined to compel applicant to attend the evaluation with Dr. Charles,] applicant’s attorney began objecting to the decision of Judge Duncan and the fact that the issue was being put on the record at [the mandatory settlement conference (MSC)] instead of setting the issue for trial” (page 6). ,             In her R

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.