News and Insights

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

Michael Waters vs. Charter Communications; New Hampshire Insurance Co., Adjusted By Broadspire

Charter Communications; New Hampshire Insurance Co., adjusted by Broadspire Michael Waters  WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL WATERS, Applicant, vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO., adjusted by BROADSPIRE, Defendants. Case No. ADJ7847287 OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REMOVAL, GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration and/or removal of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) July 13, 2011 order that defendant pay $2,000 out of permanent disability to applicant’s attorney to be deposited into his trust account for estimated costs for a rehabilitation expert.            Defendant contends there is no statutory basis for ordering defendant to advance the costs of a vocational expert’s opinion on diminished future earning capacity prior to an evaluation of the relevance and necessity of the expert testimony.            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and applicant’s Answer, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied and the Petition for Removal dismissed.            For the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the Petition for Removal, grant the Petition for Reconsideration, and rescind the WCJ’s July 13, 2011 order.            Applicant claimed that he sustained industrial injury to his lower extremities, while employed as a furniture mover/major account executive on June 10, 2010. At a conference on July 13, 2011, at which defendant did not appear, the WCJ issued the order now contested by defendant on reconsideration/removal. ,             We agree with the WCJ’s reasoning in his Report that defendant’s petition should be considered a petition for reconsideration because it seeks review of a final order that defendant pay money. As reconsideration is


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 *