Liliana Perez, vs. E. & J. Gallow Winery,

In this case, Liliana Perez filed a petition to reopen for new and further disability against E. & J. Gallow Winery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, finding that the defendant was the only party that "instituted proceedings to terminate an award" and that the defendant had not offered any legal authority in support of its position. The Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

E. & J. Gallow Winery, Liliana Perez, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALILIANA PEREZ, Applicant,vs.E. & J. GALLOW WINERY,Defendant.Case No. ADJ6877517(Stockton District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto, and the contents of the WCJ’s Opinion on Decision. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report and opinion, which are both adopted and incorporated herein, and the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration.            Defendant appears to argue that, because applicant filed a petition to reopen for new and further disability first, she “initiated” all the proceedings that followed including defendant’s petition to terminate benefits. (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 3:10-11.) Defendant’s contention is without merit. Applicant’s petition to reopen solely sought reopening for new and further disability not to terminate a medical award. Moreover, applicant withdrew her petition to reopen before it was submitted for trial on September 13, 2016. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 9/13/16, at p. 4:7-8.) According to the WCJ’s Report, defendant “insisted on going forward on defendant’s petition” despite applicant’s withdrawal. (Report, at p. 2.) Labor Code1 section 4607 applies when a party “institutes proceedings to terminate an award . . . for continuing medical treatment and is unsuccessful. . . . (Lab. Code, § 4607, emphasis added.) Defendant is the only party in this case that “instituted” proceedings “to terminate” a continuing award. The language of section 4607 does not render it inapplicable because 1 All further statutory references are to the Labor Code, unless otherwise noted. , applicant filed a petition to reopen for new and further disability first

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.