Gary Tomei vs. Bay Alarm Company; Travelers Property And Casualty Insurance Company

(OAK 0345390)In this case, Gary Tomei, an employee of Bay Alarm Company, sought removal or reconsideration of the April 22, 2011 Findings and Award of a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who found that Tomei was not entitled to cervical surgery at that time. The WCJ's decision was based on the fact that the treating physician's request for authorization to perform the cervical surgery was not in compliance with Administrative Director (AD) Rule 9792.6(o). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the WCJ's decision to defer the issue of applicant's entitlement to cervical spine surgery. The case was remanded to the WCJ to order the Medical Director/Administrative Director

Bay Alarm Company; Travelers Property And Casualty Insurance Company Gary Tomei WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGARY TOMEI, Applicant,vs.BAY ALARM COMPANY; TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.Case No. ADJ3699477 (OAK 0345390)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks removal or reconsideration of the April 22, 2011 Findings and Award of workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who found in pertinent part that applicant “is not entitled to cervical surgery at this time.” It is admitted that applicant incurred industrial injury to his lumbar spine while employed by defendant as a customer service technician on January 16, 2006.            Applicant contends that the finding that applicant “is not entitled to cervical surgery at this time” is in error because it based upon the WCJ’s conclusion, as expressed in her Opinion on Decision, that the treating physician’s request for authorization to perform the cervical surgery was not in compliance with Administrative Director (AD) Rule 9792.6(o) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §9792.6(o)) because applicant’s attorney handwrote on the top of the physician’s September 15, 2010 narrative report request, “Treatment Authorization Requested.”            The WCJ provided a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that reconsideration be granted and that the Appeals Board issue a decision addressing whether the authorization request was in proper form. Applicant’s attorney thereafter , requested to file a response to address a sentence in the WCJ’s Report that implied he was not forthright in acknowledging that he handwrote on the physician’s September 15, 2010 report before submitting it to defendant. The attorney’s request is granted and his response to the Report is received.            Reconsideration is granted and the WCJ’s decision is amended to defer the issue of applic

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.