News and Insights

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

ROY HAAS vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA; REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

CITY OF SANTA ROSA; REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND ROY HAAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROY HAAS, Applicant,vs.CITY OF SANTA ROSA; REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7483972ADJ7483952(Santa Rosa District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION ANDDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant, Roy Haas, has filed a petition for reconsideration from the two Findings and Awards, issued August 22, 2012, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant, while employed as a maintenance worker by the City of Santa Rosa, sustained 22% permanent disability a result of his admitted injury to his left elbow on March 31, 2009, in ADJ7483952, and 19% permanent disability as a result of an admitted cumulative trauma injury to his bilateral shoulders over the period ending April 8, 2009, in ADJ7483972.            Applicant contests the WCJ’s findings on permanent disability for both injuries, contending he is entitled to a rating that incorporates all of the findings of Dr. David Suchard, the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME), where the AME found applicant had both impairment in his range of motion and in his loss of strength in his left elbow and in his shoulders, and that the AME intended to include both impairment factors in a combined rating. Applicant argues that where the evidence supports both types of impairment, the WCJ’s rating was improperly based upon a mechanical application of the AMA Guides. Applicant further contends that the rating of his left elbow impairment should use occupational code “H” instead of “G,” since the rating schedule requires that the occupational variant used shall be the highest variant.            Defendant has filed an answer to applicant’s petition.            The WCJ has prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, in which , he recommends that the Findings and Award in both cases be amended to increase a

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 *