News and Insights

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

Janice Kelley vs. Good

Good Janice Kelley WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIAJANICE KELLEY, Applicant,vs.GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITfAL; ZURICHINSURANCE COMPANY, Adjusted By BROADSPIRE,Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ2987812 (SJO 0262336)ADJ1100259 (SJO 0262338)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We previously granted defendant’s petition for reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case.1 This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Defendant sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 25, 2009, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a registered nurse on August 15, 2002 (ADJ29878I2/SJO 0262336) sustained a specific industrial injury to her low back, and from November 1979 through approximately July 19. 2006 (ADJ1100259/SJO 0262338) sustained cumulative injury to her low back, neck and upper extremities, and that both injuries combined to cause 75% permanent disability after apportionment. The WCJ also found that applicant was entitled to a 15% increase in the entire value of her regular permanent disability indemnity’ pursuant to Labor Code section 4658(d).2 Previously, in 1997, applicant obtained an award of 25% permanent disability due to an industrial injury to her low back. 1 This mailer had to be reassigned lo a new Appeals Board panelist since prior panelist. Commissioner Aghazarian. no longer sitting as a Commissioner.2Unless otherwise stated, all farther statutory references are to the Labor Code. ,             Defendant contended in essence that the WCJ erred in finding 75% permanent disability. Specifically, defendant contended that the evidence did not justify combining the disabilities for two of applicant’s injuries pursuant to Benson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Benson) (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535 [74 Cal.Comp.Cases 113], arguing that the disabilities were separable. Defendant also contended that the ev

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Your email address will not be published.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 *