News and Insights

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

MATTHEW AUSTIN vs. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. MATTHEW AUSTIN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMATTHEW AUSTIN, Applicant,vs.BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE, administered bySEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ7642434(San Francisco District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION ANDDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendants Bridgestone/Firestone and Old Republic Insurance, administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., (collectively, defendant) seek reconsideration of the Findings and Award with Opinion on Decision (F&A) issued in this case by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 16, 2012. In that F&A, the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant Matthew Austin (applicant)’s slip and fall on October 27, 2010 was the result of a sudden and extraordinary event, and so was within the exception to the requirement of six months of employment under Labor Code1 section 3208.3, subdivision (d)2 for injuries to psyche. (Findings of Fact, 3.) Defendant contends in pertinent part that the circumstances of applicant’s injury did not fall within the exception because the event was not extraordinary.            We have not received an answer from applicant. We received a Report and Recommendation (Report) from the WCJ in response to the petition for reconsideration, which recommends denial of defendant’s petition. 1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Labor Code.2 Hereafter, section 3208.3(d). ,             We have reviewed the record and considered the allegations of the petition for reconsideration and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record, for the reasons stated below, we will grant defendant’s petition and amend the F&A to find that applicant did not meet the exception in section 3208.3(d) for compensability of a psyche injury (Find

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 *