Gregory Nilsen vs. Vista Ford; Pacific Compensation Insurance Company

(OXN 0147327) This case involves a dispute between Gregory Nilsen, the applicant, and Vista Ford and Pacific Compensation Insurance Company, the defendants, regarding medical treatment in the form of Lidoderm patches. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and issued an Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. The Board found that the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ should be affirmed, except that the issue of applicant's appeal of the Independent Medical Review decision, the issue of applicant's medical treatment in the form of Lidoderm patches, and the issue of an award of medical treatment in the form of Lidoderm patches should be deferred.

Vista Ford; Pacific Compensation Insurance Company Gregory Nilsen  WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIA                GREGORY NILSEN, Applicant,    vs.    VISTA FORD; PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.        Case No. ADJ630145 (OXN 0147327)                OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION We granted defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration on August 18, 2014 to further study the    factual and legal issues in this case.1 This is ourOpinion and Decision After Reconsideration.     Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued in this case by a    workers’ compensation administrative law judge(WCJ) on June 4, 2014. The WCJ found in pertinent    part that good cause existed to grant applicant’s appeal of an Independent Medica] Review (IMR)    decision of December 23, 2013, that applicant reasonably required medical treatment in the form of    Lidoderm patches as prescribed by his treating physician Kaymar Assil, M.D., and that good cause    existed to award the treatment.     Defendant contended that Dubon v. World Restoration, Inc., (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cascs 313    (Appeals Board en banc) (Dubon I) does not applyto circumstances where an IMR appeal is granted so    that the WCJ should not have awarded the disputed medical treatmentto applicant; and that a treatment    dispute that had been subject to an IMR appeal should be remanded to the Administrative Director    pursuant to Labor Code section 4610.6(i). 1 We previously issued a decision on October 26, 2012. Commissioner Moresi, who was on the Appeals    Board panel that issued that decision, no longer serves on the Appeals Board. Another panel member was    assigned in his place. ,  We received an Answer from applicant. We received a Report and Recommendation (Report)    from the WCJ in response to the Petition forReconsideration, which recommended that defendant’s    petition be denied.     We have reviewed the record and have considered the al

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.