News and Insights

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

Olivia Molina vs. Karl Storz Imaging Inc United State Fire Insurance Company Administered By Crum & Forster

KARL STORZ IMAGING INC UNITED STATE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Administered by CRUM & FORSTER OLIVIA MOLINA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAOLIVIA MOLINA, Applicant,vs.KARL STORZ IMAGING INC.; UNITEDSTATE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,Administered by CRUM & FORSTER, Defendants.Case No. ADJ9108418(Goleta District Office)OPINION AND ORDERGRANTING PETITION FORREMOVAL AND DECISIONAFTER REMOVAL            Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order dated June 23, 2014, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) continued this matter to trial and closed discovery. Defendant contends that it is entitled to additional discovery. Applicant has filed an Answer.            Applicant, while employed as a water tester from May 20,2008, through May 20, 2013, claims to have sustained an industrial injury to multiple body parts. The employer has denied the injury. Applicant filed her Application for Adjudication of Claim on September 23, 2013. Defense counsel entered an appearance on January 14, 2014. Applicant’s deposition was scheduled for March 20, 2014, but it could not go forward because an interpreter did not appear. It was rescheduled to May 15, 2014 but it could not go forward because defense counsel was ill. The deposition was finally completed on June 20, 2014.            Meanwhile, applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed on May 20, 2014. Defendant filed a timely objection (see Court Administrator Rule 10251 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10251)). On the same date, applicant submitted a request to the Medical Unit for a panel of qualified medical evaluators (QMEs) in the specialty of chiropractic pursuant to Labor Code section 4060.1 1 Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Labor Code. ,             The case was set for Mandatory Settlement Conference on June 23, 2014. The parties filed a Pretrial Conference Statement. Applicant propose

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *