News and Insights

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

JACOB SPIELMAN vs. ENTERPRISES KEMPER INSURANCE CO Administered By BROADSPIRE GLOBAL THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATION

ENTERPRISES KEMPER INSURANCE CO Administered by BROADSPIRE GLOBAL THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATION JACOB SPIELMAN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJACOB SPIELMAN, Applicant,vs.COCA COLA ENTERPRISES; KEMPERINSURANCE CO., Administered ByBROADSPIRE GLOBAL THIRD-PARTYADMINISTRATION, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2888302 (MON 0224383)(Marina del Rey District Office)OPINION AND ORDERSDISMISSING PETITION FORREMOVAL, GRANTINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION,AND DECISION AFTERRECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks removal in response to, and/or reconsideration of, the May 8, 2014 Amended Award and/or Order (Amended Order), wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) approved the proposed Amended Order, provided by defendant, amending an earlier April 23, 2014 Award and/or Order resolving applicant’s penalty claims.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in approving the Amended Order.            We have reviewed defendant’s Objection to Applicant’s Petition for Removal and or Reconsideration (Answer). The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition for Removal and/or Reconsideration (Petition) be denied “or, if it is determined that Applicant was deprived of an opportunity to be heard,” the Amended Order should be rescinded and the matter returned for further proceedings.            We have considered the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition as a petition for removal, grant applicant’s Petition as a petition for reconsideration, rescind the WCJ’s Amended Order, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.FACTS            While employed by defendant as a merchandiser on March 8, 1997, applicant sustained an , industrial injury to his low back and psyche. Applicant’s case was resolved by way of Stipulation with Request f

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Get exclusive access to in-debt interviews.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

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