Samuel Enriquez vs. Guild And Robert Weatherbytwin City Fire Insurance Administered By The Hartford

; ADJ8934657In this case, Samuel Enriquez, the applicant, was seeking to use an interpreter who met state requirements and would accept the workers' compensation pay schedule. The Hartford Insurance Company, the defendant, filed a Petition for Removal, arguing that Enriquez must use an interpreter from their Medical Provider Network interpreter program. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, stating that The Hartford would ultimately be liable to pay for the interpreter, and that their liability would be limited to the amount deemed to be "reasonable" under the fee schedule in effect at the time the interpreter services were provided.

GUILD AND ROBERT WEATHERBYTWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE Administered by THE HARTFORD SAMUEL ENRIQUEZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASAMUEL ENRIQUEZ, Applicant,vs.GUILD AND ROBERT WEATHERBY; TWINCITY FIRE INSURANCE, Administered byTHE HARTFORD, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ8915260; ADJ8934657(San Luis Obispo District Office)OPINION AND ORDERDENYING PETITION FORREMOVAL            Defendant, The Hartford Insurance Company, has filed a Petition for Removal with respect to the Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) at the mandatory settlement conference (MSC) of March 12, 2014. The WCJ’s order provided in pertinent part: “Applicant may choose interpreter who meets state requirements and will accept work comp pay schedule.” Defendant’s petition asserts, in substance, that applicant must use an interpreter from those listed in defendant’s medical provider network (MPN) interpreter program.            We have considered defendant’s Petition for Removal and applicant’s Answer. Based on our review of the record, we deny removal.            Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fi. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fii. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a).) ,             Here, defendant does not dispute that applicant is in need of an interpreter or that it will ultimately be liable to pay for the interpreter, assuming the inter

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.