Juanita Scott, vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Permissibly Self-insured,

. In this case, Juanita Scott was employed as a cardiology technician and sustained industrial injury to both wrists in 1997. She then filed additional claims for a cumulative trauma ending July 29, 1999 and a specific injury on July 29, 1999 to her neck, back, shoulders, lower extremities, upper extremities, knees, and psyche. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues and ultimately found that there was substantial evidence which justified the need for childcare. The WCJ's award of childcare was affirmed, with the details of how childcare is to be provided to be worked out by the parties or referred to the WCJ if they cannot.

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, Permissibly Self-Insured, JUANITA SCOTT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJUANITA SCOTT, Applicant,vs.KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ599226 (SDO 0230732)ADJ1694291 (SDO 0261435)ADJ3923024 (SDO 0261437)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            On February 23, 2009, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues. This is our decision after reconsideration.            In the Findings and Award of December 2, 2008, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that on July 29, 1999, and during the periods July 29, 1998 to July 29, 1999 and January 28, 1995 to January 28, 1996, applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck, back, both shoulders, both lower extremities including the knees, psyche, and both upper extremities, and that applicant is in need of further medical treatment, including childcare in accordance with the opinion of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Wieseltier.            Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ’s decision, contending, in substance, that the WCJ erred in finding that the parties agreed to present the issue of daycare to the AME, that the issue of daycare reimbursement is not ripe for adjudication, that “temporary disability indemnity is intended as a wage replacement during applicant’s healing period and [so] a double recovery cannot be permissible,” and that the WCJ’s order of childcare is vague as to which grandchildren should receive it, for how many days of the week, and for how many hours each day.            Applicant filed an answer./// ,             In 1997, the parties stipulated that applicant, while employed as a cardiology technician on September 18, 1995, sustained industrial injury to both wrists, causing 34% permanent disability and the need for further medical treatment. Additional claims were subsequently filed for a

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.