Sergio Corrales vs. Avis Rent-a-car; American Casualty Company Of Pa, Adjusted By Cna Claimplus

This case involves a dispute between Sergio Corrales, an employee of Avis Rent-A-Car, and American Casualty Company of PA, adjusted by CNA Claimplus. Corrales claims to have sustained injury to his back and other body parts while employed by Avis. Avis accepted Corrales' claim of specific injury to the back and provided benefits, but disputed the claim of cumulative injury. Corrales filed a petition for reconsideration or removal of the order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) at the mandatory settlement conference (MSC) on May 9, 2011, setting the case for trial. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration and removal, finding that the WCJ's

Avis Rent-A-CAr; American Casualty Company Of Pa, adjusted by CNA Claimplus Sergio Corrales WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASERGIO CORRALES, Applicant,vs.AVIS RENT-A-CAR; AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF PA, adjusted by CNA CLAIMPLUS, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7055920ADJ7055918RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            By timely filed and verified petition, applicant seeks reconsideration or, in the alternative, removal of the order issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) at the mandatory settlement conference (MSC) on May 9, 2011, setting these cases for trial.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in setting these cases for trial because defendant filed a defective declaration of readiness to proceed (DOR). Additionally, applicant claims that he was denied due process and will suffer substantial prejudice and irreparable harm because the WCJ ordered that “MPN issue” and “further discovery outside MPN” be included in the issues to be determined at the June 23, 2011 trial. Finally, applicant argues that the WCJ erred because he did not sustain applicant’s objection to the DOR.            We have considered the allegations of the petition for reconsideration or, in the alternative, removal. We have also considered the contents of the report and recommendation on petition for reconsideration (Report) of the WCJ and the answer filed by defendant. Applicant has requested our permission to file a supplemental petition pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848, and has submitted a supplemental petition. We decline to accept the supplemental petition.1 1            The supplemental petition addresses the propriety of the verification contained on applicant’s petition for reconsideration/removal. We have accepted applicant’s petition for reconsideration/removal as properly verified and therefore we do not need to address that issue. ,             Based upon our r

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.