Tomas Arambula, vs. Todd Rutkin, Inc.; Berkshire; Hathaway Homestate Company,

This case involves a worker's compensation claim by Tomas Arambula for cumulative injury to his psyche, right shoulder, back, right lower extremity, and hernia. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petitions for reconsideration filed by Tami Navon and lien claimant Ira Reinherz, D.C., and denied removal of Dr. Reinherz's petition, but granted removal of Ms. Navon's. The Board vacated the June 1, 2009 Order compelling Ms. Navon to appear for her deposition.

TODD RUTKIN, INC.; BERKSHIRE; HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY, TOMAS ARAMBULA, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIATOMAS ARAMBULA, Applicant,vs.TODD RUTKIN, INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY, Defendant (s).Case No.: ADJ3604849 (VNO 0545037)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING REMOVAL; GRANTING REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Tami Navon and lien claimant Ira Reinherz, D.C., through Diane Tan, seek reconsideration and/or removal following the issuance of the June 1, 2009 Orders compelling the attendance of “Tami Reinherz Navon” and “Ira Reinherz, M.D.[sic]” at their depositions by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant’s ongoing underlying claim, which has been denied by defendant, is for cumulative injury to his psyche, right shoulder, back, right lower extremity, both knees and in the form of hernia.            In their petitions,1 Ms. Navon and Dr. Reinherz2 each contends that the Order compelling 1Although each petition stales that it is for “removal of WCJ Reeves,” in neither is there a contention that the WCJ should be disqualified pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, or an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating detailed facts to establish grounds for disqualification (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10452). Additionally, we note that, with only minor changes, the petitions are the same. In Dr. Reinherzs petition, page 2 makes erroneous reference to Ms. Navon as the deponent.2In his petition, Dr. Reinherz states incorrectly that he is not a lien claimant. He has filed a lien for his charges for applicant’s medical treatment, is listed in the record as a lien claimant and has filed several pleadings stating he is a lien claimant (e.g., “Lien Claimant’s Petition for Sanctions and Opposition to Defendant’s Petition to Compell[sic] the Attendance of Ira Reinherz, D.C. at Deposition on the Basis of Lack of Required Pesonal[sic] Service of a Subpoena” (dated 2/2

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.