Mikhail Arkhipov vs. M&M Electric; State Compensation Insurance Fund

In this case, Mikhail Arkhipov, an electrician, sought reconsideration of a March 16, 2010 Findings and Award wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that he sustained an industrial injury on September 29, 2003 to his thoracic spine, left great toe, left wrist, face, head, ribs, and left foot pain radiating from the toe injury that caused 37% permanent disability. The WCJ mistakenly awarded benefits to "Abel Vargas" rather than the applicant. The WCJ granted the petition for reconsideration, amending the March 16, 2010 Findings and Award to find that the applicant sustained an injury to his nose and to correct applicant's name in the award. The

M&M Electric; State Compensation Insurance Fund Mikhail Arkhipov WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMIKHAIL ARKHIPOV, Applicant,vs.M&M ELECTRIC; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ979743 (VNO 0482899)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION ANDDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March, 16, 2010 Findings and Award wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the applicant, while employed as an electrician, sustained an industrial injury on September 29, 2003 to his thoracic spine, left great toe, left wrist, face, head, ribs, and left foot pain radiating from the toe injury that caused 37% permanent disability. The WCJ mistakenly awarded benefits to “Abel Vargas” rather than the applicant.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in awarding benefits to Abel Vargas rather then the applicant, Mikhail Arkhipov. The applicant also contends that the WCJ erred in referring to applicant’s employer as “EDD” rather than M & M Electric in the Opinion on Decision. Finally, the applicant contends that the WCJ erred in failing to find the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his nose and psyche, arguing that defendant stipulated that the applicant sustained an injury to his nose and that the applicant was injured as a result of a sudden and extraordinary event.            We have considered the petition for reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have received an answer from the applicant. The WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the petition be granted solely to find injury to applicant’s nose. ,             For the reasons discussed by the WCJ in his report, which we adopt and incorporate by reference, we will grant reconsideration, amend March 16, 2010 Findings and Award to find that the applicant sustained an injury to his nose and t

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.