News and Insights

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

Michael Hamm, vs. Contractors Labor Pool; california Insurance Guarantee Association, For Reliance Insurance, In Liquidation,

CONTRACTORS LABOR POOL; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, for RELIANCE INSURANCE, In Liquidation, MICHAEL HAMM, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMICHAEL HAMM, Applicant,vs.CONTRACTORS LABOR POOL;CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, for RELIANCE INSURANCE, In Liquidation, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3660427 (OAK 0270080)ADJ1439099 (OAK 0339361)OPINION AND ORDERS GRANTING RECONSIDERATION, DISMISSING REMOVAL, AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of or, in the alternative, requests removal from the July 27, 2009 Findings, Award and Orders issued by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on May 18, 1999 as a construction laborer, sustained industrial injury to his “right wrist and to his phyche [sic], left upper extremity, and in the form of neurological injury, stroke, and partial paralysis as a compensable consequence.” The WCJ further found that defendant’s exhibits 0, P, and Q are inadmissible; that applicant sustained 211/2% permanent disability as a result of injury to his right wrist and 55% permanent disability as a result of his psychiatric injury; that, before a determination of applicant’s overall disability can occur, there must be further development of the record on a neurological and vocational basis; that applicant is in need of further medical treatment; and that defendant unreasonably delayed medical treatment and/or payment of temporary disability as alleged by applicant in his petitions filed March 5, 2002 and May 28, 2004 entitling applicant to penalties calculated at 25% of the delayed benefits. Based on these findings, , the WCJ awarded medical treatment and penalties, ordered the parties to develop the record with regard to permanent disability and apportionment, and ordered defendant to commence advances of permanent disability.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding psychiatr

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Your email address will not be published.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 *