Tony Blandino vs. United Waste Systems, Inc.; National Union Fire Insurance Company/aig (chartis); Liberty Insurance Corporation (liberty Mutual)

This case involves a dispute between United Waste Systems, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company/AIG (Chartis), and Liberty Insurance Corporation (Liberty Mutual) regarding the liability of Liberty for payments made by AIG in settling a workers' compensation claim. Liberty sought reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision that Liberty was barred from submitting any new evidence on the issue of injury AOE/COE/contribution and was liable for its prorata share of payments made by AIG. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the arbitrator's decision, returning the matter to the arbitrator to independently consider the evidence and render a decision.

United Waste Systems, Inc.; National Union Fire Insurance Company/Aig (Chartis); Liberty Insurance Corporation (Liberty Mutual) Tony Blandino WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIATONY BLANDINO, Applicant,vs.UNITED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY/AIG (CHARTIS); LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION (LIBERTY MUTUAL), Defendant,Case No. ADJ2582500AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant Liberty Insurance Company (“Liberty’*) seeks reconsideration of an arbitrator’s Findings, Award and Orders of May 3, 2010. wherein it was found that Liberty was “barred from submitting any new evidence (apart from the evidence admitted in the underlying proceedings before the workers’ compensation administrative law judge] on the issue of ipjury AOE/COE/contribution,” and that Libert)’ was “liable for litsj prorata share of the payments made by |co-dcfcndant National Union Fire Insurance Company/AIG (AIG)] in administering and/or settling the underlying claim with the Applicant.”            Liberty contends that the arbitrator erred in not allowing it to introduce evidence regarding its liability in this matter, in not conducting his own evidentiary hearing, and in finding that he was bound by a WCJ’s prior decision. Wc have received an answer, and the arbitrator has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report).            As explained below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings, Aw-ard and Orders of the Arbitrator of May 3, 2010, return this matter to the arbitrator so that he may independently consider the evidence in this matter and render a decision, and for him to document the proceedings as mandated by WCAB Rule 10566 and Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Bd. en banc). ,             Our review of this matter is complicated by the fact that the arbitrator did not prepare minutes of hearing listing the stipulations of the

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.