News and Insights

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

James Pritchett, vs. Chipton-ross, Inc; State Icompensation Insurance Fund; Northrop Grumman Corporation; National Fire Insurance Company Of Pennsylvania,

CHIPTON-ROSS, INC; STATE ICOMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION; NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, JAMES PRITCHETT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIA.JAMES PRITCHETT, Applicant,vs.CHIPTON-ROSS, INC; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND;NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION; NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant(s).Case Nos.ADJ361146 (AHM0081010)ADJ1841007 (AHM0070321) OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), adjusting the “covered claims” of Superior National Insurance Company, in liquidation, seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order of July 21, 2009 in ADJI841007/AHM0070321, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed by Chipton- Ross on September 10, 1998, sustained industrial injury to his neck, both shoulders, psyche, thoracic spine and hearing, causing permanent disability of 33%. WCJ also found that CIGA is liable for the permanent disability caused by the injury of September 10, 1998, and so the WCJ issued the Award against CIGA for permanent disability indemnity, further medical treatment, self-procured medical treatment, and medical-legal expenses.            CIGA contends, in substance, that it is a statutory creature which is only liable for claims authorized by the Insurance Code, that general employer Northrop Grumman is jointly and severally liable for this applicant’s workers’ compensation benefits, that the contractual agreements between Northrop Grumman and Chipton-Ross are not binding on CIGA, and that CIGA’s stipulations in the original Appeals Board case of Miceli v. Jacuzzi, Inc. (2003) 68 Cal. ‘Comp. Cases 434 [en banc] are not binding in this case. ,             Northrop Grumman Corporation filed an answer.             The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). Based on our review o

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 *