LUIZA ZIEGLER vs. FIRST BANK AND TRUST, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE CO.
The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely, filed 26 days after the October 9, 2008, Order of Dismissal.
Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely, filed 26 days after the October 9, 2008, Order of Dismissal.
This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Pablo Lopez Duran and multiple defendants including South Hills Academy, Church Mutual Insurance Company, Security National Insurance Company, Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC, and Chubb Insurance Group. The Board granted a petition for reconsideration and affirmed a prior order regarding sanctions and costs. Specifically, Chubb Insurance Group, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., was ordered to pay an additional $395 for attorneys' fees related to a petition for fees, less any credit for prior payments.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant sought penalties and attorney fees for the late payment of a Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement, alleging Chubb Group failed to make timely and correct payment. The Board found that the delay was due to a single instance of human error involving an incorrect address on the C&R, which was promptly corrected upon discovery. The applicant also contributed to the delay by not notifying Chubb of the non-receipt of payment for over three months. Therefore, the Board concluded there was no unreasonable delay justifying penalties.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Antonia Garcia's Petition for Reconsideration against Goglanian Bakeries and Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. The dismissal was based on the petition's failure to meet the verification requirement of Labor Code section 5902. Even if it had been verified, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation judge.
This case involves an applicant, Guillermo Lemus, and defendants G & K Management, Inc., and Chubb Insurance Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration filed in this matter. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, noting the petition was skeletal and unverified. Even on the merits, the petition would have been denied based on the WCJ's report.
This case involves a sports athletic trainer, Brian Clark, who sustained head and psyche injuries at work. Both the applicant and the defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award. The applicant argued his occupational group was misclassified, while the defendant contended the judge wrongly rejected the medical evaluator's apportionment of permanent disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions, upholding the original findings. The Board found the applicant failed to prove factual error in his occupational group classification and adopted the WCJ's reasoning regarding the apportionment.
The Appeals Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that Donna Carter sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and left wrist on May 18, 2016. Despite inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony regarding a slip and fall incident, her account was corroborated by a witness who found her on the floor. Medical records from the day of the incident also supported the applicant's claim, establishing a clear mechanism of injury. The Board found that the common sense nature of a slip and fall does not require expert medical opinion to establish industrial causation for the incident itself.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a Findings and Award, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The Applicant alleged a left shoulder injury sustained while employed as a landscaper on February 25, 2016. The Board found the WCJ's credibility determinations, based on observing witnesses, to be sound and supported by substantial evidence. The WCJ appropriately admitted an employer letter rebutting testimony about the date of injury and employment. Medical evidence from Dr. McCreesh supported an industrial injury, while Dr. Poon's opinions were deemed speculative and inflammatory.
This case involves Maria Duran's request for home health care services, which was initially denied by utilization review (UR) and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The applicant argued that her need for assistance with household chores and personal hygiene fell outside the scope of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines as applied. While the Board acknowledges that the specific MTUS guideline used in this case was later found to be an invalid regulation in a related case, it affirmed the original decision. This affirmance was based on the finding that the initial request for services was too vague, lacking specific details on the type, frequency, and duration of care, and that a revised request could be made.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Shari Hernandez's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration will be inadequate. The WCAB found that the applicant did not meet this high burden of proof, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for denial. Therefore, the petition was denied.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.