News and Insights

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

Harry Pifer, vs. La Mesa Appliance Company (Adj4447791); Wine Bank, Inc. (Adj813560); And State Compensation Insurance Fund,

La Mesa Appliance Company (Adj4447791); Wine Bank, Inc. (Adj813560); And State Compensation Insurance Fund, Harry Pifer, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAHARRY PIFER, Applicant,vs.LA MESA APPLIANCE COMPANY (ADJ4447791); WINE BANK, INC. (ADJ813560); and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ4447791 (SDO 0259860)ADJ813560 (SDO 0259859)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant, who is representing himself, seeks reconsideration of two separate awards issued in ADJ4447791 and ADJ813560. In ADJ447791, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an Award on February 28, 2017 based on a Stipulations with Request for Award for a 1999 back injury that caused 63% permanent disability. In ADJ813560, the WCJ issued an award on March 1, 2017 based on a Stipulations with Request for Award for a 1998 back injury that caused 17% permanent disability            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by issuing two separate awards and in making various findings in accordance with the Stipulations with Request for Award.            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the petition be denied.            For the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ’s decision and return the matter to the trial level for a new decision.            It appears that the WCJ issued awards based on two Stipulations with Request for Award submitted by the parties. In her Report, the WCJ described the following series of events that occurred after the awards issued:     The case was then set for 3/14/2014 at 8:30 a.m. Neither the applicant, nor     his wife, nor the adjuster for SCIF showed for that date and the case was ,      continue

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *