News and Insights

Yolanda Ortiz, vs. Ucsf Stanford Health Care And Ciga, For Reliance National Insurance, In Liquidation, By Its Servicing Facility, Intercare Holdings Insurance Services, Inc.,

UCSF STANFORD HEALTH CARE and CIGA, for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE, in liquidation, by its servicing facility, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., YOLANDA ORTIZ, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAYOLANDA ORTIZ, Applicant,vs.UCSF STANFORD HEALTH CARE and CIGA, for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE, in liquidation, by its servicing facility, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ3097538 (SFO 0446365)ADJ2535723 (SFO 0482694)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            We previously granted defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association’s (CIGA) petition for reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award filed and served on March 26, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the January 7, 2008 Determination of the Rehabilitation Unit (RU) is final, because CIGA failed to file a timely appeal. The WCJ found, pursuant to the RU’s Determination, that applicant is entitled to “retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance of at least the weekly rate of $442.96 for the period September 14, 2005 to the present and continuing indefinitely hereafter,” and that applicant is entitled to vocational rehabilitation services. Applicant’s claims arise from her industrial injury to her cervical spine and upper extremities, while she was employed as a nursing assistant during the period ending October 19, 1999, and during the period ending December 21, 2004.            As noted by the WCJ, defendant’s contentions are not “separately stated and clearly set forth,” as required by Appeals Board Rule 10842 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10842), but defendant appears to contend that the RU’s Determination was invalid or erroneous because service was , defective, because it was ambiguous and overly broad, because applicant’s r

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *