Phillip Ho vs. Palo Alto Unified School District, Permissibly Self-insured, Administered By Keenan & Associates

is a case in which the Palo Alto Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by Keenan & Associates, filed a Petition for Removal in response to an Order that issued on February 25, 2013, taking the matter off calendar for further development of the record. The Petition for Removal was denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board as it did not result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant. The Board also noted that the Government Code sections cited by the defendant were inapplicable to the applicant's Labor Code § 132a claim.

Palo Alto Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by Keenan & Associates Phillip Ho WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPHILLIP HO, Applicant,vs.PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered byKEENAN & ASSOCIATES, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7912541ADJ7912544(San Francisco District Office)ORDER DENYING REMOVAL            We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition for Removal and we have reviewed the record in this matter, including the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Report and Recommendation. We also have exercised our discretion to accept defendant’s supplemental petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848, WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.) However, we agree with the WCJ’s assessment that the order taking the matter off calendar, for further development of the record, does not result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843.) Therefore, we will deny the petition for removal.            We further note that, though the WCJ has opined on the merits of defendant’s presentment of Government Code section 911.2, there have been no findings on the merits. At the same time, we note that it is important to complete discovery because medical evidence concerning the injured worker’s ability to return to work is germane to the amount of damages in a claim asserted under Labor Code section 132a./ / // / // / / ,             For the foregoing reasons,            IT IS ORDERED that said Petition for Removal is DENIED.WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD_________________________________________DEIDRA E. LOWEI CONCUR,_________________________________________FRANK M. BRASS_________________________________________MARGUERITE SWEENEYDATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAMAY 13 2013SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.PHILLIP HOWITKO

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.