News and Insights

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

MARY JONES vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER; SEDGWICK, CMS

UCLA MEDICAL CENTER; SEDGWICK, CMS MARY JONES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARY JONES, Applicant,vs.UCLA MEDICAL CENTER; SEDGWICK, CMS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ4639631 (MON 0327478)(Marina del Rey District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVALAND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order dated August 20, 2012, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) continued this case to trial. Defendant contends that it has been “intentionally hoodwinked, bamboozled and victimized based on the egregious and malicious litigation tactics implemented by the applicant,” who is not represented by an attorney; that it has not had sufficient opportunity to complete discovery; and that the case should not have been continued to trial after a status conference. Applicant has filed an answer.            Applicant, while employed as a nurse on January 21, 2005, claims to have sustained an industrial injury to various body parts. The case was set for trial which was converted to a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) on January 19, 2012. The parties filed a pretrial conference statement pursuant to Labor Code section 5502(e)(3).1 The case came on for trial on March 1, 2012. At that time, the WCJ instructed the parties to engage in settlement discussions, which were not successful. The case was continued to another trial date. On April 19, 2012, the WCJ took the case off calendar because “court is unable to proceed with this case until stipulations and issues can be prepared and read into record.” 1 Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Labor Code. ,             Applicant then filed three Declarations of Readiness to Proceed and a number of petitions and other correspondence. The case was set for status conference on July 1, 2012, but was continued to August 20, 2012, because the WCJ was not availab

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 *