News and Insights

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

Sydney Murphy, vs. City Of Carson; Tristar Los Angeles,

CITY OF CARSON; TRISTAR LOS ANGELES, SYDNEY MURPHY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASYDNEY MURPHY, Applicant,vs.CITY OF CARSON; TRISTAR LOS ANGELES, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ3781001 (LBO 0307061)ADJ757328 (LBO 0358246)ADJ2549671 (LBO 0324184)ADJ2863896 (LBO 0307059)ADJ2102438 (LBO 0379629)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S PETITION GRANTING APPLICANT’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of two separate Findings and Awards issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (“WCJ”) on July 31, 2009. In a Findings and Award bearing the cases ADJ757328, ADJ2863896, and ADJ2549671 in its caption, the WCJ found that, while employed as an equipment mechanic II during a cumulative period ending on May 30, 2003, applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, left leg, left hip, bilateral shoulders, bilateral upper extremities, arm and wrist. Although 5 separate claims of injury were alleged, the WCJ found that all of applicant’s separately claimed injuries were factually and legally cognizable as a single cumulative trauma injury in case ADJ2102438. Therefore, in the Findings and Award in case ADJ2102438, the WCJ found that this single cumulative trauma injury became permanent and stationary in November 2004, caused “permanent disability, less apportionment to non-industrial factors,” and a need for further medical treatment. The WCJ did not specify the applicant’s percentage of permanent disability.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in not specifying the applicant’s percentage ofpermanent disability and in not including case ADJ3781001 (another alleged injury that was deemed included in applicant’s single cumulative trauma in case ADJ2102438) in the caption of the , the Findings and Award in cases ADJ757328, ADJ2863896, and ADJ2549671. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant’s alleged injuries constituted 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 *