News and Insights

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

Martin Espinoza, vs. Gfc Holdings, Inc.; Redwood Fire And Casualty Insurance Company C/O Bershire Hathaway Homestate Companies,

Gfc Holdings, Inc.; Redwood Fire And Casualty Insurance Company C/O Bershire Hathaway Homestate Companies, Martin Espinoza, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARTIN ESPINOZA,Applicant,vs.GFC HOLDINGS, INC.; REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BERSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES,Defendants.Case No. ADJ10660543(Long Beach District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Martin Espinoza (applicant) seeks removal of the March 23, 2017, Order issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) invalidating a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) on the basis that the PQME was prematurely obtained.            Applicant contends that the Order will cause him substantial prejudice and irreparable harm that cannot later be remedied by a Petition for Reconsideration because it deprives him of his statutory right under Labor Code1 section 4060 to obtain medical evidence to prove that he sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) as alleged. Applicant argues that neither section 4060, nor section 4062.2, which specifies the procedural requirements for obtaining a PQME when the injured employee is represented by an attorney, mandate that there must first be a medical report from a primary treating physician and an objection to such report.            The WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report), recommending denial of applicant’s Petition. She states her opinion that the PQME was prematurely requested because applicant made the request prior to receipt and review of a report from a primary 1 All statutory references hereinafter are to the Labor Code unless otherwise indicated. , treating physician. Defendant has filed an Answer urging us to deny the Petition and affirm the Order, but for a reason different than the one given by the WCJ. Defendant contends that applicant’s request for a PQME was prema

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 *