Ildelisa Vargas vs. Nature’s West; Hortica Insurance Company

This case involves a dispute between Ildelisa Vargas and Nature's West and Hortica Insurance Company. Vargas was employed as a bouquet maker during a cumulative period from September 18, 2003 to September 18, 2004 and sustained admitted industrial injury to her right wrist, and non-admitted industrial injury to her right elbow, right shoulder, left arm, and left wrist, causing permanent disability of 17% and the need for further medical treatment. The parties have entered into a Compromise and Release agreement and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has rescinded the Findings of Fact and Award of January 12, 2011 and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision consistent with the opinion.

Nature’s West; Hortica Insurance Company Ildelisa Vargas WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAILDELISA VARGAS, Applicant,Vs.NATURE’S WEST; HORTICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ865705 (GOL 98805)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            In order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case, on April 4, 2011, we granted defendant’s petition for reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Award of January 12, 2011, wherein it was found that, while employed as a bouquet maker during a cumulative period from September 18, 2003 to September 18, 2004, applicant sustained admitted industrial injury to her right wrist, and non- admitted industrial injury to her right elbow, right shoulder, left arm, and left wrist, causing permanent disability of 17% and the need for further medical treatment. Although both the WCJ’s decision and the Opinion on Decision state that “there is a basis for apportionment,” in the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ admits that this was a “clerical error” and that the permanent disability rating was arrived at without apportioning permanent disability to factors other than the industrial injury.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in (1) insufficiently explaining the basis behind his findings in violation of Labor Code section 5313, (2) finding industrial injury to the right elbow, right shoulder, left arm, and left wrist, (3) finding that the applicant’s injury caused a need for further medical treatment, (4) not making any finding regarding the applicant’s permanent and stationary date, and in (5) failing to reflect apportionment of permanent disability in the finding of permanent disability. The defendant also noted some apparent clerical errors in the decision. We , have not received an answer, and, as noted above, the WCJ has filed a Report.            During the pendency of the d

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.