Pinkerton, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 787·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 433·2001 Daily Journal DAR 5763·89 Cal. App. 4th 1019·66 Cal. Comp. Cases 695
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 7, 2001B143940California3,873 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Pinkerton, Inc., seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying its petition for reconsideration and affirming an award in favor of Tinishia Samuel. Pinkerton contends that it gave sufficient notice of change of the primary treating physician. While the statute and regulation are not clear as to what notice is required, we conclude there was no proper notice in this case. We affirm the Board’s order.

Samuel asks that we order Pinkerton to pay her attorney’s fees and costs incurred in responding to its petition.

Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we deny Samuel’s request for fees and costs.

Factual and Procedural Summary

Samuel was employed as a security guard by Pinkerton. On April 27, 1998, she was injured at work when she slipped and fell on a waxed floor. She injured her back, neck, shoulder, right wrist, right knee and both ankles. Pinkerton prepared a preprinted document entitled “Notice to Doctor” to refer Samuel to Santa Monica Bay Physicians. The first line simply stated: “To: Treating Doctor (PTP).” No physician was named or otherwise identified. The next day, however, Dr. Chris Effimoff of Santa Monica…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.