News and Insights

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

Robert Vilarino vs. Chromatics Inc California Insurance Guarantee Association For Fremont Insurance Comp Any In Liquidation, Administered By Sedgwick Cms

CHROMATICS INC CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT INSURANCE COMP ANY In Liquidation, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS ROBERT VILARINO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROBERT VILARINO, Applicant,vs.CHROMATICS, INC.; CALIFORNIAINSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION,For FREMONT INSURANCE COMP ANY, InLiquidation, Administered by SEDGWICKCMS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ1160066 (MON 0261712)(Marina del Rey District Office)OPINION AND ORDERDENYING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of this Appeals Board’s Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of April 29, 2014, in which we rescinded the Supplemental Findings and Order issued by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) on March 19, 2012. In addition, we substituted our findings that (1) applicant received a net third party recovery of $415,000 as a result of the settlement of his civil suit against third party defendant Aventis Pasteur, Inc.; (2) applicant has not carried his burden of showing that his injury was caused by any negligence on the part of his employer; and (3) pursuant to8 Labor Code section 3861, defendant is entitled to a credit towards its future workers’ compensation liability to the extent of applicant’s net recovery from the settlement of his civil suit in the amount of $415,000. Accordingly, we ordered that defendant’s Petition for Third Party Credit be granted and that defendant be credited in the amount of$415,000 towards its future workers’ compensation liability.            Applicant contends, in substance, that the Board acted prematurely in finding that defendant is entitled to credit for the third party recovery, because .the WCJ’s determination that there was some employer negligence, without a finding on the extent of negligence or damages, was not a final order for purposes of reconsideration. Applicant further contends that the Board should have denied defendant’s petition for reconsideration of the WCJ’s decision because the pet

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Your email address will not be published.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 *