Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Krause v. WCAB | 07/23/2010 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION THE COURT*fn1 Cynthia Krause petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (Krause v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (F049301) (Krause I). )By way of a petition for writ of review, Krause contended the WCAB erred in finding she did not also sustain a psychological injury and by not authorizing a referral for a gastric bypass evaluation. The WCJ also recommended the WCAB impose sanctions against Krause for improperly trying to "`backdoor'" evidence refuting the existence of Wal-Mart's MPN that had not been submitted at trial. As the WCAB concluded, Krause "cannot claim to be aggrieved by the inclusion of AHA at this time. " | ||
| Note: | The 5th District Court of Appeal denied an applicant's petition for a writ of review that attempted to continue treatment outside of an insurer's medical provider network. | ||
| Citation: | F058778 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 36512010 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Kreigsman v. WCAB | 04/10/1993 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Therefore, our summary of those events is based on the petition for writ of review, the answer to the petition, and the return. As the Stump case progressed, it appeared that the trial was not going to be finished until late in the afternoon. At 3 p. m. , the WCJ referred counsel for Zenith and Attorney Sparagna to PWCJ Bate for a discussion of the situation. On April 15, 1992, PWCJ Bate issued an order allowing Dr. Kriegsman $ 6,895. 06 of his lien claim and denying $ 5,554. 44 of the lien claim. We must therefore remand this matter for further proceedings including a trial on the merits of Dr. Kriegsman's lien claim. | ||
| Note: | Lien claimant denied due process by lien reduction with no opportunity to argue for full amount due to scheduling conflict. | ||
| Citation: | 58 CCC 244 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 27761993 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Kroger Co. v. WCAB (Rodriguez) | 10/30/2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | KROGER CO. v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD THE KROGER CO. et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, Respondents. The employer, The Kroger Company (Kroger), through its adjustor, Sedgwick CMS (Sedgwick), filed its notice of appeal on November 27, 2007. He apparently sustained a second injury on December 30, 1999; both injuries were admitted and involved as employer a predecessor or subsidiary of petitioner Kroger. According to the WCJ, there was no clear indication that the DOR had ever been filed with the WCAB. We are not bound by determinations of questions of law by the WCAB (Dimmig v. Workmen's Comp. | ||
| Note: | A Declaration of Readiness to Proceed does not need to be filed along with a notice of appeal challenging a vocational rehabilitation award for the appeal to be effective. | ||
| Citation: | B239771 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 39472012 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Kroger Co. v. WCAB (Velasquez) | 06/04/2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | KROGER COMPANY v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD THE KROGER COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GEORGE VELASQUEZ, Respondents. In practice, parties aggrieved by an award of the Rehabilitation Unit had 20 days within which to file a notice of appeal, which went to the WCAB. The Rehabilitation Unit acknowledged, in writing, that the notice of appeal had been filed with the WCAB. Rather, it was the WCAB position that the award was final because petitioners' appeal was defective and of no effect. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the cause is remanded with directions to proceed with petitioners' appeal to the WCAB as deemed timely filed. | ||
| Note: | An employer's failure to file a declaration of readiness to proceed along with its notice of appeal of an administrative ruling did not invalidate its timely filed appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. | ||
| Citation: | B236608 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 39022012 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Kunz vs. Patterson Floor Coverings | 12/05/2002 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SJO 0224503 SCOTT KUNZ, Applicant, vs. PATTERSON FLOOR COVERINGS, INC. ; and GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CO. In the August 9, 2002 decision, the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, Scott Kunz, sustained industrial injury to his left knee on February 3, 2000, while employed as a carpet installer by Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc. , the insured of Golden Eagle Insurance Company ("Golden Eagle"). On April 4, 2001, applicant had left knee surgery, performed by Michael Butcher, M. D. , at Alpine's outpatient surgery center. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 57, 67 [50 Cal. Comp. Cases 411, 418]; Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 1204, 1210 [60 Cal. Comp. Cases 289, 291-292]; Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group v. Workers' Comp. | ||
| Note: | Failure to make specific objection does not waive it; OFMS applies to services prescibed by DR at outpatient center; Outpatient fees must be reasonble. | ||
| Citation: | 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 28982002 CA | ||
