News and Insights

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

Lydia Quinones vs. Star Ring California Indemnity Insurance Company As Administered By Gallagher Bassett Services Inc

STAR RING CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY as administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC LYDIA QUINONES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALYDIA QUINONES, Applicant,vs.STAR RING/CALIFORNIA INDEMNITYINSURANCE COMPANY as administered byGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ3793506 (LBO 0329885)OPINION AND DECISIONAFTERRECONSIDERATION            We granted defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration on June 13, 2014 to further study the factual and legal issues in this case and to issue orders designating exhibits and a Notice of Intention (NIT) to admit those exhibits. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.            Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued on March 25, 2014 by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to her spine and psyche; that she was permanent and stationary on January 19, 2009; that she was entitled to reimbursement for the costs of her vocational expert; that she was entitled to home health care services; and that she was 100% permanently disabled.            Defendant contended that the WCJ violated its due process rights by denying its request to obtain a supplemental report from its Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME); that the record should be further developed to obtain that report; that the finding of 100% permanent disability is not supported by the evidence; that the report of applicant’s QME of March 2, 2010 was not substantial evidence because it is contradicted by his report of December 17, 2013; that the WCJ erred in considering the reports of applicant’s vocational expert and awarding reimbursement for the cost of that expert; that the award of home health care services is not supported by the evidence; that applicant was permanent and stationary at an earlier date; and that it did not stipulate to injury to applicant’s psyche. ,             We received an A

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 *