News and Insights

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

Rafael Lorea vs. Compu-aire Inc; Oak River Insurance Company

Compu-Aire Inc; Oak River Insurance Company Rafael Lorea WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARAFAEL LOREA, Applicant,vs.COMPU-AIRE INC; OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7014335OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, Oak River Insurance Company, on behalf of its insured, Compu-Aire, Inc., seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award, issued July 5, 2011, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant Rafael Lorea sustained a cumulative trauma injury to his bilateral knees over the period January 26, 2008 to January 26, 2009, while employed as an assembler by Compu-Aire, resulting in a period of temporary disability from December 22, 2008 to December 28, 2008, and from October 27, 2009 to the present and continuing. The WCJ also found the “commencement date” for temporary disability payments under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) has not yet occurred. The WCJ found against defendant’s post-termination affirmative defense, finding applicant sought medical treatment for his injury prior to the date of his termination.            Defendant contests the WCJ’s finding that applicant sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment and the award of temporary disability. Defendant argues that applicant did not establish he sustained an industrial injury through substantial evidence, asserting that applicant’s testimony should not be found credible, and his medical evidence does not support the award because the medical reports are based upon an inaccurate medical history. Second, defendant contests the continuing award of temporary disability, asserting the WCJ should have followed Labor Code section 4656(c)(2), which limits temporary disability to 104 compensable weeks from the date of injury, and should have considered the lien of the Employment Development Department (EDD). Defendant also contends the awa


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Your email address will not be published.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 *