News and Insights

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

Jose Angel Segura, vs. Linens ‘n Things, Zurich American Company, Administered By For Removal Broadspire; J.c. Honda Service, State Compensation Insurance Fund,

LINENS ‘N THINGS, ZURICH AMERICAN COMPANY, Administered by FOR REMOVAL BROADSPIRE; J.C. HONDA SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, JOSE ANGEL SEGURA, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSE ANGEL SEGURA, Applicant,vs.LINENS ‘N THINGS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by BROADSPIRE; J.C. HONDA SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ1764950 (SDO 0348948)ADJ1767496 (SDO 0362315)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Defendant, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), seeks “removal and/or reconsideration” of the deferral of an issue, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge deferred the issue of whether applicant sustained a continuous trauma injury and ordered the parties to obtain an agreed medical examination addressing the issue of whether or not applicant sustained a continuous trauma injury (CT).            Zurich contends that the WCJ erred: (1) by ordering the parties to proceed with agreed medical examination contrary to McDuffie v. Los Angeles County (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc); (2) by failing to find that applicant sustained a cumulative injury with injurious exposure occurring when applicant’s employer was insured for workers’ compensation benefits by co-defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund); (3) by awarding applicant further medical benefits; and (4) by issuing a decision lacking clarity and specificity regarding “what set of facts testified to by [applicant] are true.” Defendant, State Fund, filed an Answer.//// ,             We have considered the issues set forth in Zurich’s petition and the contents of the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal and/or Reconsideration (Report). Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth in the WCJ’s Report, which we adopt and incorporate, except as to Zurich’s failure to verify


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Your email address will not be published.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 *