| | Wagner v. Allied Signal Aerospace, en banc decision | | | WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM WAGNER, Applicant, VS. ALLIED SIGNAL AEROSPACE; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Defendrznt(s). Case No. LAO 763476 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) l2I The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) granted defendant's 13/1 Petition for | |
|
| | Hines En Banc Decision | | | WORKERS' COMf ENSATION APPEALS BOARD . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRED T. HINES, Applicant, vs. NEW UNITED MOTORS MANUFACTURING, INC., and GREAT AMERICAN RISK MANAGEMENT, Defendant($. Case Nos. SAL 0082124 SAL 0082125 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) On December 22, 2000, the Workers' Compensation Appeal | |
|
| | Hamilton En Banc Decision | | | WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD MAXINE HAMILTON, Applicant, VS. LOCKHEED CORPORATION; WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Defeizdaitt(s). STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. MON 0223961 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) 1111 On December 27, 2000, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) granted 15i/reconsi | |
|
| | Garcia en Banc Decision | | | JULIE GARCIA, Applicant, VS. THE VONS COMPANY, INC., Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s). Case No. AHM 0057674 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL AND ORDER AWARDING SANCTIONS (EN BANC) 31 The Board, on its own motion, previously removed this matter to itself under Labor Code 14 section 5310. Removal was ordered so t | |
|
| | En Banc Decision | | | In a single cumulative injury or occupational disease case, an approved stipulation, settlement or decision setting apportionment of liability is binding on the now-insolvent carrier and becomes CIGAs responsibility. Absent extraordinary circumstances, where CIGA is or has become liable for administering an award on behalf of a now-insolvent carrier, CIGA will be relieved of administering that award. | |
|
| | Virginia Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles En Banc Decision | | | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. MON 0307506 VIRGINIA SANCHEZ, Applicant, OPINION AND DECISION vs. AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured; and TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT (Adjustin | |
|
| | Jack Strong v. City and County of San Francisco En Banc Decision | | | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SFO 0479038 JACK C. STRONG, Applicant, OPINION AND DECISION vs. AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s). We granted recon | |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| | Full Text Of Costa II En Banc Decision | | | The Appeals Board has issued a second en banc decision in Joey Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic (2007) 9 WCAB Rptr.10,387 reaffirming the prior en banc decision in this case [Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic (2007) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10.016.)Costa II)]. Holding that Labor Code §4660 continues to allow the parties to present evidence on and/or rebuttal to a permanent disability rating under the new Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, and that the costs of such evidence may be allowable. In addition, the Appeals Board concluded that the standards for allowing such costs will be by analogy to medical-legal costs, i.e., whether the costs are reasonable and necessary at the time they are incurred. | |
|
| |
|
| | ALMARAZ v.. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY SERVICES En Banc Decision | | | ALMARAZ v.. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY SERVICES En Banc Decision GUZMAN v. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services and Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District involved the rebuttal of the American Medical Association (A
| |
|
| | Mendoza en banc decision | | | (1) California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 30(d)(3) (Administrative Director Rule 30(d)(3)), which states that when a claim has been entirely denied by the defendant only the employee may request a panel of Qualified Medical Evaluators, is invalid because it conflicts with Labor Code §§4060(c) and 4062.2 and exceeds the scope of Labor Code §5402(b).
(2) The time limits of Labor Code §4062(a) for objecting to a treating physician’s medical determination do not apply when the injury has been entirely denied by the defendant.
(3) Labor Code §4062.2 does not establish timelines for initiating or completing the process for obtaining a medical-legal report on compensability.
| |
|
