News and Insights

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

Martha Quevedo vs. Union Fidelity Life; General Electrical Financial Assurance Company

Union Fidelity Life; General Electrical Financial Assurance Company Martha Quevedo WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARTHA QUEVEDO, Applicant,vs.UNION FIDELITY LIFE; GENERAL ELECTRICAL FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ4538958 (VNO 0407145)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings. Award and Order of June I, 2010, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that on April 12, 2000. applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck, both shoulders, both elbows, both hands, and to her gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and psychological systems, causing permanent disability of 100% without apportionment. In addition, the WCJ found that applicant’s permanent disability award of 100% is payable at the rate of $293.50 per week for life commencing June 28,2006, that **any issues regarding calculation ol an attorney’s fee with respect to the applicant’s cost of living adjustment (COLA) will need to be addressed in supplemental proceedings,’’ and that defendant unreasonably delayed the payment of permanent disability by paying at the incorrect rate of $230.00 per week from February 25, 2007 to present and continuing, thus entitling applicant to a penalty of $2.705.55, calculated by taking 25% of $10.822.21 – the amount of underpaid permanent disability at $63.50 per week from February 25, 2007 to the present.            Defendant contends, in substance, that the evidence does not justify a finding of 100% permanent disability without apportionment, that the medical record requires further development, that the evidence does not justify any penalty on permanent disability, and that the WCJ cn-ed in reserving jurisdiction on the issue of COLA increases ,             Applicant filed an answer.            The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation.            Defendant filed a response to the WCJ’s Report, in violat

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Your email address will not be published.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 *