Michael Rider vs. The Home Depot; Helmsman Management West Sacramento

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the Findings and Order issued by the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge. The Board ordered the matter to be returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new final decision. The Board did this in order to avoid bifurcation of the issues in the matter while a determination on the deferred issues is pending.

The Home Depot; Helmsman Management West Sacramento Michael Rider WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMICHAEL RIDER, Applicant,vs.THE HOME DEPOT; HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT WEST SACRAMENTO, Defendant,Case No. ADJ1924300OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, The Home Depot, permissibly self-insured, has filed a petition seeking reconsideration, or in the alternative removal, from the Findings and Order, Order Vacating Submission, issued April 12, 2010, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) granted applicant Michael Rider’s petition to reopen his 2006 stipulated award of 35% permanent disability for his June 10, 2004 industrial injury to his bilateral knees, and found applicant’s permanent disability increased to 55% The WCJ also concluded there was no basis for apportionment to non-industrial factors, and that the doctrine of res judicata was not applicable to the issue of apportionment. However, the WCJ also concluded that the record requires further development to determine whether applicant also sustained a separate cumulative trauma injury and. if so, to determine, as required by Benson v. Permanente Medical Group (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535 (74 Cal.Comp.Cases 113), what percentage of his disability is attributable to the cumulative trauma and what percentage is attributable to his specific injury. Therefore, the WCJ vacated the submission of the matter and ordered the parties to undertake further development of the medical record by obtaining a supplemental report from the panel Qualified Medical Evaluator,Dr. Seibert. ,             Defendam contests the WCJ’s determination that there is no basis for apportionment to non-industrial factors, where the prior stipulated award of 35% permanent disability was implicitly based upo^Dr. Seibert’s 2005 repon that 50% of applicant’s disability should be apportioned to his non-industrial arthritis and aging process. Defenda

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.