Patrick C. O’brien vs. Warden’s Auto Repair ; State Compenst

(SAC 0332621) is a case in which Patrick C. O'Brien, an applicant, sought reconsideration of the April 13, 2010 Findings and Award of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who denied his petition for commutation of the pension due him pursuant to the earlier July 23, 2009 stipulated award that issued as a result of the admitted industrial injury to his neck, back, upper extremities, abdomen, psyche, groin (hernia) and hemorrhoids while employed by Warden's Auto Repair as a mechanic on December 26, 2002. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the denial of applicant's petition for commutation and granted full commutation of the life pension due to applicant's

Warden’s Auto Repair ; State Compenst Patrick C. O’Brien  WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPATRICK C. O’BRIENApplicant,vs.WARDEN’S AUTO REPAIR;STATE RECONSIDERATION COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,Defendant.Case No. ADJ2002839 (SAC 0332621)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 13, 2010 Findings and Award of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) who denied his petition for commutation of the pension due him pursuant to the earlier July 23, 2009 stipulated award that issued as a result of the admitted industrial injury to his neck, back, upper extremities, abdomen, psyche, groin (hernia) and hemorrhoids while employed by Warden’s Auto Repair as a mechanic on December 26, 2002, which was agreed by the parties to have caused 79% permanent disability and a need for further medical treatment. Under the terms of the July 23, 2009 award, applicant is entitled to a life pension of $73.44 per week beginning on January 15, 2017.            Applicant contends that the WCJ should have granted some or all of the requested commutation based upon the evidence he presented of his current pressing financial needs.            An answer was received from defendant, and the WCJ provided a Report and, Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that applicant’s petition be denied. Applicant thereafter submitted a supplemental petition for reconsideration and reply to the WCJ’s Report, but did not specifically request the approval of Appeals Board to file that document as required by California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10848. The supplemental , pleading does not include information that could not have been presented at trial or as part of the petition for reconsideration, and its filing is not approved.             We grant reconsideration, and as our Decision After Reconsideration we rescind the denial of applicant’s petition for co

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.