News and Insights

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

Gabriela Medina, vs. Innovative Facility Services; Gallagher Bassett Elk Grove,

INNOVATIVE FACILITY SERVICES; GALLAGHER BASSETT ELK GROVE, GABRIELA MEDINA, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGABRIELA MEDINA, Applicant,vs.INNOVATIVE FACILITY SERVICES; GALLAGHER BASSETT ELK GROVE, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ717785 (MON 0357270)ADJ2210479 (MON 0357271)ADJ4156131 (MON 0357272)ADJ2088727 (MON 0357273)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Lien claimant, Arthur Malkin, D.C., seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order issued July 27, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant did not sustain any compensable industrial injury as set forth in claim numbers MON 0357270, MON 0357271, MON 0357272, MON 0357273, because they were post- termination filings barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The WCJ also ordered that the lien claim of Arthur Malkin, D.C. was disallowed.            In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ noted at page 3:       “[E]ven if the employer knew about the injury on January 10,       2008, that would have been after Applicant had been terminated on       January 7, 2008. The evidence indicates that, as soon as she was       informed that she was terminated, Applicant went the same day to       an attorney and to a chiropractor to initiate four separate injury       claims. Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) was enacted precisely to       remedy such retaliatory claims. The workers’ compensation judge       properly held that the entirety of Chiropractor Malkin’s billing       should be disallowed as services provided in conjunction with       post-termination claims.”            Lien claimant contends that the WCJ erred by disallowing the lien arguing: (1) that the WCJ wrongfully found that applicant’s claim was a post-termination claim subject to Labor Code , section 3600(a)(10); and (2) that the employer’s actions were inconsistent with actual ter

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 *