Court Denies Writ of Review of Enriquez En Banc Opinion (Air Ambulance Services): Cal. Comp. Cases August Advanced Postings (7/30/2014)

Here’s the first batch of advanced postings for August 2014 issue of Cal. Comp. Cases.

Lexis.com and Lexis Advance subscribers can link to the case to read the complete headnotes and summaries.

© Copyright 2014 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.

Zenith Insurance Company, insurer for Couto Dairy, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Luis Enriquez (Dec'd), Cecilia Enriquez, et al. (Applicants), Respondents, lexis.com, Lexis Advance

Air Ambulance Services—Preemption of State Regulations—Official Medical Fee Schedule—WCAB, denying reconsideration of its previous en banc opinion, which had held that (1) neither California Constitution Art. III, § 3.5, nor Labor Code § 5307.1 prevented WCAB from finding preemption of 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 9789.70, which contained official medical fee schedule for air ambulance services, (2) federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C.S. § 41713(b)(1), preempted 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 9789.70 if lien claimant providing air ambulance services was “air carrier that may provide air transportation” within meaning of Airline Deregulation Act, and (3) air ambulance provider had burden of showing that it was “air carrier that may provide air transportation” within meaning of preemption provision of Airline Deregulation Act, including showing that it was authorized to provide interstate air transportation, that on remand WCJ issued findings of fact and order finding that lien claimant Mercy Air Services was air carrier within meaning of Airline Deregulation Act, that Airline Deregulation Act preempted 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 9789.70, and that reasonable value of services lien claimant provided was $11,132.93, when WCAB found that…

Grazyna Kozak, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Quidel Corporation, CNA Insurance Company, administered by CNA Claims Plus, Respondents, lexis.com, Lexis Advance

Permanent Disability—Rating—Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supported WCAB’s permanent disability ratings for applicant’s three industrial injuries, that applicant did not show that any of four possible grounds for reconsideration of WCAB’s decision under Labor Code § 5952 applied and did not show that WCAB made error by using 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, when WCAB found that…

Further Medical Treatment—Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supported WCAB’s award of further medical treatment for bilateral wrists and back for applicant’s three industrial injuries, and that applicant did not show that any of four possible grounds for reconsideration of WCAB’s decision under Labor Code § 5952 applied, when WCAB…

Evidence—Admissibility—Court of Appeal held that applicant did not show prejudicial error from WCAB’s admission of three defense exhibits, when WCAB admitted defense exhibits, applicant objected, and WCAB overruled objection, and exhibits were…

____________