GEORGE MAYES vs. ERNEST PIERSON COMPANY, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

ADJ3754831 (EUR0020462) is a case in which George Mayes, an applicant, sought reconsideration of a May 1, 2012 Supplemental Findings and Award and Order. The order found that Mayes, while employed as a lumber handler on July 29, 1990, sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, chest, upper extremities, carpal tunnel, thoracic and lumbar spine, and abdominal area, and while employed as a sales clerk on January 12, 1991, sustained industrial injury to his low back. The order also found that Mayes' industrial injuries did not cause lipoma, lymphoma, or other cancer in or adjacent to his spine. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied May

ERNEST PIERSON COMPANY, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND GEORGE MAYES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGEORGE MAYES, Applicant,vs.ERNEST PIERSON COMPANY, INC.; STATE COMPENSATIONINSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ123228 (EUR 0029751)ADJ3754831 (EUR 0020462)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant, in propria persona, seeks reconsideration of the May 1, 2012 Supplemental Findings and Award and Order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that Applicant, while employed as a lumber handler on July 29, 1990, sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, chest, upper extremities, carpal tunnel, thoracic and lumbar spine, and abdominal area. The WCJ found that the issues of Applicant’s “compensation rate, nature, duration and extent of disabilities, need for medical treatment, and other issues for the injury of July 29, 1990 were resolved by Stipulations with Request For Award issued October 15, 1998.” The WCJ also found that Applicant, while employed as a sales clerk on January 12, 1991, sustained industrial injury to his low back, and that the issues of Applicant’s “compensation rate, nature, duration and extent of disabilities, need for medical treatment, and other issues for the injury of July 29, 1990 were resolved by Stipulations with Request For Award and Award issued July 14, 1998.” The WCJ further found that Applicant’s industrial injuries “did not cause lipoma, lymphoma, or other cancer in or adjacent to applicant’s spine,” and that there was “no medical evidence that it was medically probably that treatment of Applicant’s cancer was necessary to treat the effects of his work injuries.”            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that “a lipoma, cancer, which developed adjacent to applicant’s spine and was removed in 2006 or 2009 by medical treatment” was not a compensable consequence of Applicant’s industrial injuries. ,             We have c

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.