News and Insights

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

MARIA MADRID vs. SF APPAREL INC CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY C/o BROOKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

SF APPAREL INC CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BROOKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES MARIA MADRID WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARIA MADRID, Applicant,vs.SF APPAREL, INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCECOMPANY c/o BROOKSHIRE HATHAWAYHOMESTATE COMPANIES,    Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ9286921; ADJ9286927(Marina del Rey District Office)OPINION AND ORDERGRANTING PETITION FORREMOVAL AND DECISIONAFTER REMOVAL            Defendant, Cypress Insurance Company (Cypress), has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order dated June 11, 2014, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered these matters continued to trial on August 5, 2014, thus closing discovery as a matter of law since Labor Code section 5502(c)(3)1 provides that discovery closes on the date of a mandatory settlement conference (MSC). Defendant contends that applicant did not make a good faith effort to settle the cases prior to filing her Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) and that closing discovery will deprive defendant of its due process rights. Applicant has not filed an answer.            Applicant, while employed as a ”warehouse,” claims to have sustained industrial injuries on July 1, 2013, to her knee and back and from January 1, 1996, through January 3, 2014. She filed Applications for Adjudication of Claim on, January 16, 2014. Defendant states that it denied the injuries on February 11, 2014. On February 26, 2014, applicant filed a DOR requesting that the cases be set on the issues of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, temporary disability, and medical treatment. On April 21, 2014, defendant’s counsel entered her appearance in these cases and filed an 1 Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Labor Code. , untimely objection to the DOR. The cases were set for MSC on June 11, 2014, and thereafter continued to trial.            After our review of the r

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *