News and Insights

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

Maximino Ultreras vs. Cottage Health Systems, Permissibly Self-insured, Adjusted By Keenan & Assoc.

Cottage Health Systems, permissibly self-insured, adjusted by Keenan & Assoc. Maximino Ultreras WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMAXIMINO ULTRERAS, Applicant,vs.COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEMS, permissibly self-insured, adjusted by KEENAN & ASSOC., Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7336122 OPINION AND ORDERS DENYING REMOVAL GRANTING RECONSIDERATION, AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration and removal of the Order Vacating Submission and Appointing Regular Physician Pursuant to L.C. § 5701 (Order) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 30, 2011, wherein the WCJ vacated submission of this matter after ahearing because he found the medical evidence inadequate. The WCJ stated that he did not believe that sending the applicant back to his treating doctor would result in a clear or reliable record, so, pursuant to Labor Code section 5701,1 he appointed Daniel Ovadia, M.D., to evaluate applicant. The WCJ also found applicant’s injury arose out of and in the course of the employment (AOE/COE).            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding injury AOE/COE, arguing that there is no clear statement as to which body parts have been found to be industrially injured, and there is no medical evidence to support a finding of cumulative injury. Defendant also contends the WCJ erred in appointing a “regular physician” pursuant to section 5701, arguing that the parties had agreed to close discovery and submit the case for decision on the record.            We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition and the record in this matter. No answer was received. The WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, 1            Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. , recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration/Removal be denied.            Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated herein, we will deny

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Your email address will not be published.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 *