Germerial Warrick vs. Visual Concepts; Great American Insurance Co.

. This case is about Germerial Warrick, an employee of Visual Concepts, who sought workers' compensation for an injury to his right shoulder that he claimed occurred while he was working. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

VISUAL CONCEPTS; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. GERMERIAL WARRICK WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGERMERIAL WARRICK, Applicant,vs.VISUAL CONCEPTS; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Defendants.Case No. ADJ7240850(Oxnard District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant Germerial Warrick seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order served on April 24, 2012, in which the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (“WCJ”) found that applicant, while employed on November 19, 2009 by Visual Concepts, “did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his right shoulder….” The WCJ held that applicant did not require further medical treatment for his alleged injury on an industrial basis and had not incurred self-procured medical costs on an industrial basis. No attorneys’ fees were awarded, and the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing against Visual Concept’s insurer, Great American Insurance Company.            Applicant contends that the WCJ improperly held that the shoulder injury was nonindustrial, based on an incorrect belief that Mr. Warrick had sought treatment for his right shoulder before the alleged industrial injury occurred.            A letter to the WCJ from applicant titled “Request to Set Aside Findings & Order” (the “letter”) was filed on May 3, 2012. The WCJ deemed this to be a Petition for Reconsideration and produced a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration dated May 11, 2012 (“Report 1”). However, we have concluded that the letter was not a Petition for Reconsideration and have not treated it as such. Applicant then filed a formal Petition for Reconsideration of Findings and Order on May 17, 2012 (the “Petition”), and the WCJ responded with a second Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration dated May 22, 2012 (“Report 2”). We have considered the May 17, 2012 Petition, and , have reviewed the record in this matt

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.