News and Insights

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

SHIRLEY WASHINGTON vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured; SEDGWICK CMS

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured; SEDGWICK CMS SHIRLEY WASHINGTON WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASHIRLEY WASHINGTON, Applicant,vs.COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured;SEDGWICK CMS, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ2557593 (OAK 321451)ADJ7115613OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            In order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case, on December 5, 2011, we granted applicant’s and defendant’s respective Petitions for Reconsideration of two concurrently filed decisions issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on September 15, 2011. In a Findings of Fact, Award and Orders issued in Case No. ADJ7115613, it was found that, while employed as a cashier assistant during a cumulative period ending on January 13, 2005, applicant sustained industrial injury to her right upper extremity, and in the forms of arousal disorder and asthma, but not to her psyche, spine, bilateral lower extremities or in the form of headaches. In a Findings of Fact and Orders issued in Case No. ADJ2557593, it was found that, while employed on October 4, 2004, applicant sustained industrial injury to her right upper extremity and in the forms of arousal disorder and asthma, but not to her psyche, spine, bilateral lower extremities or in the form of headaches. The WCJ found that applicant had sustained permanent disability of 81%, all of which was caused by her cumulative injury in Case No. ADJ7115613.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in (1) finding that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her psyche and in (2) finding only 81% permanent disability, arguing that the evidence supported a finding of permanent total (100%) disability on the grounds that applicant was not able to compete in the open labor market. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding 81% permanent disability, arguing that the WCJ erred in (1) not finding 20% apportionment to non-industrial fact

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Your email address will not be published.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 *