News and Insights

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

Josephine Richau vs. San Francisco Unified School District; Insurance Corporation Of Hannover By Midlands Claims Administrators

San Francisco Unified School District; Insurance Corporation Of Hannover By Midlands Claims Administrators Josephine Richau WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSEPHINE RICHAU, Applicant,vs.SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; INSURANCE CORPORATION OF HANNOVER by MIDLANDS CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2345295 (OAK 0340967)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of our June 1, 20JO Opinion and Award of Supplemental Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Order) wherein we awarded applicant’s attorney S3.120.00 in attorney’s fees and $297.66 in costs incurred in responding to defendant petition to the Court of Appeal for review of the May 21,2009 finding that applicant is totally permanently disabled by the effects of the methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus infection that developed following surgeries performed to treat the admitted July 16. 2002 industrial injury she incurred to her spine- while working as a special education teacher for the San Francisco Unified School District, with no basis for apportionment. We affirmed the WCJ’s May 21, 2009 decision in our cariicr August 17. 2009 Opinion and Order Denying |Defendant’s Petition For] Reconsideration.            Defendant contends that it paid applicant’s attorney an agreed fee before our June 7. 2010 Award issued, and that there is no basis for awarding additional attorney’s fees.Applicant’s attorney, Mark Gcarhean, responded to defendant’s petition in a July 7. 2010 letter, wherein he slates that the fees he claimed were paid in full by defendant and. “Applicant’s attorney does not contend that the June 7. 2010 Order requires defendant to pay anything other than , what was already paid” and. “applicant s attorney is not seeking any further payments at this time and believes that no further action needs to be taken.”            Based upon the acknowledgement by Mr. Gearheart that the fees described in our June JO. 2007 Order have been


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Your email address will not be published.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 *