News and Insights

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

Mario Vazquez vs. Solutherin California Gas Company; Alexis Risk Management Services, Inc.

Solutherin California Gas Company; Alexis Risk Management Services, Inc. Mario Vazquez WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARIO VAZQUEZ, Applicant,vs.SOLUTHERIN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY; ALEXIS RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ1861602; ADJ509009OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration oí the Joint Findings of Fact and Award and Order, issued June 10, 2010. wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to his psyche, head and “headaches and seizures” on December 9, 1988 (ADJ1861602) and “from July 1988 through September 1991” (ADJ509009), resulting in 100% permanent disability. The WCJ awarded applicant lifetime benefits at the rate of S398.69 per week beginning September 12, 1991 and further medical treatment. The WCJ specifically found that there was no basis for apportionment.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by failing to reduce applicant’s award of permanent disability by apportioning to non-industrial factors arguing that the WCJ relied upon medical reporting which was not substantial evidence. Defendant further contends that the medical reporting of Dr. Jaime Ansclen supports apportionment of applicant’s award because Dr. Anselen noted that applicant would have been “substantially disabled but not total” without an industrial injury yet concluded that there was no medical basis for apportionment.            We have considered defendant’s petition and the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) issued by the WCJ. Based upon our review of the record, and for the , reasons set forth herein and in the WCJ’s Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny defendant’s petition.            Defendant does not dispute that applicant’s overall permanent disability without regard to apportionment is 100%, as stated in the Slarch 25. 2009 report of Jaime B


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Your email address will not be published.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 *