12/01/2022
; Ramirez v. WCAB 35 CCC 383 W D1970.
7
Now decisions have been made on a record of evidence with further specificity of the issues being
adjudicated as well as the evidence to be admitted has been formulated so that there is compliance
with Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation 2001 66 Cal. Comp
Category: Panel
12/01/2022
due. Cal. Code
Regs. 10109c. The duty to investigate a claim includes a duty to act in an expeditious manner
to determine liability for the payment of compensation which requires that the employer or
insurance carrier take the initiative in providing benefits. Ramirez v. Workers Comp
Category: Panel
12/01/2022
ADJ10060159 GABINO PIZANO
ADJ10011454 FIDEL RAMIREZ ADJ10006078 EDGAR TORRES ADJ10004298
ESTEVAN VALDIVIA ADJ10061293 Applicants
vs.
COUNTY OF FRESNO permissibly self-insured administered by AIMS INSURANCE
SERVICES Defendants
Adjudication Number ADJ10011064 MF
Fresno District Office
Category: Panel
11/14/2022
A California appellate court ruled that the Privette doctrine did not shield a property owner from potential liability to a worker injured on its premises.
Case Ramirez v. PK I Plaza 580 SC LP No. A162593 11102022 published.
Facts Kimco Realty Corp. owns a Livermore shopping center
Category: News
11/01/2022
WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JOSE RAMIREZ CARDENAS Applicant
vs.
V.G RAMIREZ INC.; STAR INSURANCE COMPANY administered by
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE Defendants
Adjudication Numbers ADJ9380781; ADJ9127070
Los Angeles District Office
OPINION AND DECISION
AFTER
Category: Panel
11/01/2022
BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
SARAH BAUM
THE RAMIREZ FIRM
COUNTY COUNSEL OF SAN BERNARDINO
ASara
I certify that I affixed the official seal of the
Workers Compensation Appeals Board to this
original decision on this date.
abs
3
Category: Panel
10/08/2022
Category: Profile
10/01/2022
. Miss Gonzalez deposition 86-87
2. Miss Medinas deposition 88-89
3. Miss Ramirez deposition 90-91
4. Lourdes Ramirez deposition 92-93
5. Dr. Dodds deposition 94-95
6. Ms. Heredias deposition 96-97
7. Dr. Basadres deposition 98-99
8. Jackson Memorial Hospital 100-102
Employer
Category: Panel
10/01/2022
follow up appointment with Dr.
Ramirez alleging that the carrier improperly unilaterally deauthorized this physician in a
manner inconsistent with the statute.
2. There is no dispute that the carrier authorized Dr. Ramirez pursuant to a referral for
orthopedic care from claimants authorized PCP
Category: Panel
10/01/2022
requested. See
6
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. Hamilton 2001 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 476 Appeals Board en
banc decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in the record;
see also Ramirez v. Jaguar Farm Labor Contracting Inc. 2018 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 56 2018
Cal. Wrk
Category: Panel