News and Insights

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

Luis Medina, vs. Boardwalk Auto Center; Arch Insurance Company,

BOARDWALK AUTO CENTER; ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, LUIS MEDINA, WORKERS’ COMI[PENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALUIS MEDINA, Applicant,vs.BOARDWALK AUTO CENTER; ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2071074 (SFO 0503938)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, Boardwalk Auto Center, seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order, issued July 7, 2009, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found defendant terminated the employment of applicant, Luis Medina, because of his December 29, 2003 industrial injury’ in violation of Labor Code section 132a. Defendant was ordered to increase applicant’s compensation by $10,000, and reinstate applicant to his position as service advisor. Issues of reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits and mitigation of damages were deferred.            Defendant contends the WCJ erred in concluding it discriminated against applicant by terminating his employment because of his industrial injury. Defendant asserts that it did not terminate applicant’s employment but accepted his voluntary resignation due to his failure to respond to his employer’s repeated written requests to contact his employer. Defendant further argues that the WCJ failed to properly allocate the burden of proof for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, as set forth in Dep’t of Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals. Bd. (Lauher) 2003) 30 Cal4th 1281 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 831], as he did not require applicant to establish that he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment because of his injury. Defendant also asserts the evidence does not justify the WCJ’s determination that applicant was not medically , precluded from returning to his usual and customary job duties or that defendant had not established the business realities affirmative defense due to applicant’s inability to perform his job duties. Defendant next contends applicant is barred fr

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 *