Susana Onate, vs. I7rma, Dba Extended Stay America Services, Inc., Zurich North America,

In this case, Susana Onate, the applicant, was seeking workers' compensation benefits for an industrial injury to her psyche. The defendant, HRMA, dba Extended Stay America Services, Inc., Zurich North America, sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award of March 25, 2009, and disqualification of the WCJ. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for disqualification, granted the petition for reconsideration, and rescinded the WCJ's decision. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ, including admission of the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health record dated April 9, 2008, further development of the medical record, and consideration of sanctions against the defendant.

I7RMA, dba EXTENDED STAY AMERICA SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, SUSANA ONATE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASUSANA ONATE, Applicant,vs.HRMA, dba EXTENDED STAY AMERICA SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ955342 (VNO 0450157)OPINION AND ORDERS DENYING PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION, GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award of March 25, 2009, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that during the period December 2001 through May 12, 2002, applicant sustained industrial injury to her psyche, that applicant was temporarily totally disabled (TTD) from May 12, 2002 to June 20, 2005, that applicant is entitled to a permanent disability award of 38%, without apportionment, that applicant is entitled to further medical treatment on a psychological basis pursuant to Dr. Rahimi’s medical report of August 12, 2005, and that “applicant’s neck and back injury is found non-industrial.”            Defendant also seeks disqualification of the WCJ, asserting, in essence, that the WCJ is biased because he allegedly engaged in ex parte communications with applicant’s attorney concerning an order of contempt or sanctions against applicant’s attorney in this case.            In the petition for reconsideration, defendant contends, in substance, that the medical reports of Dr. Rahimi and Dr. Lustig do not constitute substantial evidence, that the WCJ erred in determining applicant to be a credible trial witness, and that there is newly-discovered evidence which undermines the credibility of applicant’s claim of employment-related psychiatric injury.            Based on our review of the record, we conclude that there is no substantial medical evidence to determine whether or not applicant sustained an industrial injury to her psyche, and , that, absent the parties’ agreement on an AME, a new “regu

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.