News and Insights

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

JUAN GAMBOA vs. HYDRO FITTING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANIES

HYDRO FITTING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANIES JUAN GAMBOA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJUAN GAMBOA, Applicant,vs.HYDRO FITTING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; MIDWESTINSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants.Case No. ADJ6994190(Pomona District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 14, 2012 Findings and Order wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant did not prove that his employer violated Labor Code section 132a.1            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by failing to award benefits pursuant to section 132a, arguing that applicant has met his burden of proving that he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment as a result of his work-related injury. Applicant also contends that his employer did not demonstrate a business necessity for terminating applicant.            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have received an Answer from defendant. Applicant also filed a “Response to Defendant’s Answer.” This appears to be a supplemental petition, although applicant did not request permission to file it pursuant to Appeals Board Rule 10848. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848.) We have considered applicant’s Supplemental Petition. The WCJ prepared a Report on Recommendation (Report), recommending that we deny reconsideration.            For the reasons given in the WCJ’s Report, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration. 1 All statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise stated. ,             Applicant was injured on June 3, 2009 and did not return to work. Applicant’s employment was terminated on July 14, 2009. Applicant’s employer sent him a termination letter which referenced both his inability to work and the fact that there is a lack of work due to a business slowdown. (Exhibit C.) His co-worker,

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 *