MOJGAN RAZAVY vs. SPHERION CORPORATION And NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

In this case, Mojgan Razavy, an employee of Spherion Corporation, claimed to have sustained an industrial injury to his wrist and back on May 23, 2010. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the Order Re: Discovery dated May 2, 2012, and returning the matter to the trial level to be set for a mandatory settlement conference and thereafter trial, if necessary, with discovery to close as of March 7, 2012. If after trial, the WCJ determines that the record must be supplemented, he retains the power to do so, consistent with the direction in McDuffie v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority.

SPHERION CORPORATION and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE MOJGAN RAZAVY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMOJGAN RAZAVY, Applicant,vs.SPHERION CORPORATION and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7959067(Sacramento District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL ANDDECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order Re: Discovery dated May 2, 2012, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that further discovery be allowed, “consistent with what is stated in the Minutes of Hearing March 7, 2012.” Defendant contends that discovery should have closed at the mandatory settlement conference (MSC) on March 7, 2012. We have not received an answer from applicant.            Applicant, while employed as a machine operator on May 23, 2010, claims to have sustained an industrial injury to his wrist and back. He was examined a panel qualified medical evaluator (QME). On January 30, 2012, defendant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) requesting an MSC on the issues of permanent disability and further medical treatment. Applicant did not file an objection to the DOR, thus waiving any objection to proceeding on those issues absent extraordinary circumstances.1            At the MSC on March 7, 2012, the WCJ took the case off calendar, stating, “I am concerned that record needs to be developed re treatment and whether there is impairment of left wrist.” Defendant filed a Petition for Removal. In response, the WCJ rescinded the Order dated March 7, 2012, and ordered defendant to file copies of two reports of the panel QME. On May 2, 2012, after defendant apparently failed to file the reports, the WCJ reinstated his order allowing further discovery. 1 Court Administrator Rule 10251(d) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10251(d)). ,             In McDuffie v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (2

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.