News and Insights

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

Rosalinda Navarro, vs. The Redbury At Hollywood And Vine/sbeeg Holdings, Llc; Cypress Insurance Company As Administered By Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies,

The Redbury At Hollywood And Vine/Sbeeg Holdings, Llc; Cypress Insurance Company as administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies, Rosalinda Navarro, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROSALINDA NAVARRO,Applicant,vs.THE REDBURY AT HOLLYWOOD AND VINE/SBEEG HOLDINGS, LLC; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY as administered by BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES,Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ9028738ADJ9028704(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant The Redbury at Hollywood and Vine/SBEEG Holdings, LLC/Cypress Insurance Company, as administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies, seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Awards & Orders issued by .the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2016. In pertinent part, the WCJ found that (1) applicant was temporarily disabled from March 24, 2013 to July 2, 2014 warranting an indemnity of $27,900.00, (2) applicant is 37% permanently disabled warranting 180 weeks of benefits for a total indemnity of $41,400.00, and (3) there is insufficient factual basis for apportionment.[sub]1[/sub]            Defendant contends that the WCJ failed to explain the basis for finding that applicant first became temporarily totally disabled as of March 24, 2013, and failed to state the rate that he used to calculate the total temporary disability benefits. Defendant further contends that the WCJ erred in finding a separate impairment rating for “Wrist other” of 2% pain, used the incorrect impairment rating for the “Arm/Peripheral Neuropathy” and “Knee Arthritis,” and that the WCJ’s finding that there is insufficient factual basis for apportionment is contrary to the medical evidence. [sub]1 [/sub]While we do not reach the issue of the WCJ’s decision to not admit applicant’s Exhibit 16, we note that whether an opinion is substantial evidence is not a basis for admissibility but rather goes to the weig

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Get exclusive access to in-debt interviews.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *