News and Insights

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

NIKITA HOLDEN vs. YOSHINOYA; WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

YOSHINOYA; WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY NIKITA HOLDEN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIANIKITA HOLDEN, Applicant,vs.YOSHINOYA; WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7008931(Marina del Rey District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Lien claimant, Arthur H. Malkin, D.C. (LC), has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, objecting to the Order Rescinding Decision dated July 31, 2012, issued by Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) Elena B. Jackson, and requesting that the Appeals Board assign the case to another WCJ. LC contends that the Order is untimely and that the WCJ has demonstrated bias against LC. We have not received an answer from defendant.            Applicant, while employed from October 28, 2008, through October 21, 2009, sustained an industrial injury to her neck and both upper extremities. She settled her case by Compromise and Release approved on September 12, 2011. LC filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed on January 17, 2012. LC states that there was a lien conference on April 2, 2012, at which the parties filed a Pretrial Conference Statement.1 At trial on May 16, 2012, LC filed a trial brief. Defendant was allowed fifteen days to respond to the brief. Otherwise, it appears that the case was submitted for decision.2/// 1 There is no record of this conference or pretrial conference statement in EAMS.2 There were no stipulations, no issues and no exhibits (see Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (appeals board en banc). ,             On June 22, 2012, the WCJ filed an Order finding that LC had failed to sustain its burden of proof and ordering no further payment by defendant. On July 16, 2012, LC filed a Petition for Reconsideration. On July 31, 2012, the WCJ filed the Order Rescinding Decision pursuant to WCAB Rule 10859 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10859).            As to timeliness of the Order, the ordinary rule of compu

SUBSCRIBE NOW

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 *