News and Insights

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

Louis Dukes vs. Northshore Fire Protection District, Permissibly Self-insured And Adjusted By Athens Administrators

Northshore Fire Protection District, permissibly self-insured and adjusted by Athens Administrators Louis Dukes WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALOUIS DUKES, Applicant,vs.NORTHSHORE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured and adjusted by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ3777676 (SRO 0142207) OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Louis Dukes (applicant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued in this case by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 21, 2011. The F&O found that the September 23, 2010 medical report of Dr. Kipperman was not timely served on the parties and ordered that it is inadmissible in this case. Additionally, the F&O authorized defendant to request a replacement panel of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QME) from the Medical Director.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in ruling that Dr. Kipperman’s September 23, 2010 medical report is inadmissible because that report includes a proof of service signed under penalty of perjury by Dr. Kipperman on attesting to service on the parties on September 23, 2010.            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) of the WCJ, and the answer filed by defendant.            Based upon our review of the record, the recommendations contained in the WCJ’s Report, and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration. In addition, we will dismiss the Petition as a Petition for Removal.            At the outset, we note that applicant seeks reconsideration of the WCJ’s determination that Dr. Kipperman’s September 23, 2010 report is inadmissible because it was not timely served on the parties, , thereby entitling defendant to request a replacement panel of QMEs. It is well settled that rec

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 *