Jennifer Miller vs. County Of Almeda And Sedgwick Claims Management

In this case, the County of Alameda sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation judge's (WCJ) finding that the applicant, Jennifer Miller, had sustained her burden of proof that the defendant had violated Labor Code section 132a. The WCJ deferred the issues of temporary disability, attorney's fees, and the amount of compensation due under section 132a. The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation, and the defendant filed a response. The defendant also requested a copy of the applicant's answer, which had not been received by the Board. The Board granted reconsideration in order to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in the case.

County Of Almeda and Sedgwick Claims Management Jennifer Miller WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJENNIFER MILLER, Applicant,vs.COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3235679 (SFO 0509485)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION, AND ORDER FOR COPY OF APPLICANT’S ANSWER            Defendant, the County of Alameda, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award of February 14, 2011, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained her burden of proof that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a. The WCJ deferred the issues of temporary disability, attorney’s fees, and the amount of compensation due under section 132a.            Defendant contends, in substance, that the WCJ’s finding of discrimination is based on “speculation and conjecture,” that applicant presented no evidence of discrimination under California Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lauher) (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 831], that there was no discrimination because defendant accommodated the applicant’s restrictions, that the WCJ erred in not considering defendant’s documentary evidence, that the WCJ exceeded her authority in compelling pre-trial offers of proof of future witness trial testimony, which prevented full development of the record, that defendant was denied due process because applicant was excused from her “duty to reveal her testimony at trial,” and that orders “compelling offers of proof without the stipulated agreement of the parties can do little more than create mischief, necessitating more not less litigation.”            The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation. ,             Defendant filed a response to the WCJ’s Report. This response also includes a “response to applicant’s response.” Defendant’s responses are supplemental petitions which will not be considered. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848, WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.)     

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.