News and Insights

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

Robert Evans vs. Marriott International; Marriott Hot Springs

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL; MARRIOTT HOT SPRINGS ROBERT EVANS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROBERT EVANS, Applicant,vs.MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL; MARRIOTT HOT SPRINGS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2686947 (SAC 0359102)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant Robert Evans (applicant) seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Awards and Order with Opinion on Decision (F&A) issued in this case by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 29, 2012.1 In that F&A, the WCJ found in pertinent part that: applicant’s injury did not cause industrially related headaches; applicant was temporarily totally disabled from January 19, 2007 to March 28, 2007; applicant’s injury caused permanent partial disability of 62% after adjustment; that 25% of applicant’s psychiatric disability was non-industrial; and, defendant employer Marriott International (defendant) did not offer applicant regular, modified or alternative work within sixty (60) days of his first permanent and stationary date of January 18, 2007. In pertinent part, the WCJ awarded permanent disability indemnity at the rate of $270.00 per week and applicant’s attorney’s fees.            Applicant contends that: applicant was temporarily totally disabled beginning on March 29, 2005 and was entitled to 104 weeks of indemnity benefits; applicant’s rating for permanent disability was incorrect because it did not include headaches, deconditioning, and sleep disorder; the apportionment of 1 Applicant’s attorney is reminded of Rule 10232, subdivision (4), which requires that all non-form legal pleadings contain a heading with the filing attorney’s name and California State Bar membership. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10232, subd. (4).) , applicant’s psychiatric disability was incorrect; and, applicant’s attorney’s fees were not commuted from the far end of the award.            We have received an answer from defendant. We have re

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Your email address will not be published.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 *