Daniel W Epperly's Legal Cases (3)

Workers compensation

Probation Officer vs. County of Orange ADJ9380815

Dec 05, 2016

OUTCOME: Trial Court Victory Upheld on Appeal

This probation officer developed a condition of the autonomic nervous system that resulted in unpredictable syncople episodes (Blackouts). On her own, she was able to apply for and be granted a service ... connected disability retirement. She also filed a claim for workers’ compensation (WC) benefits, requested a Panel of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QME), and selected a QME by herself (which I would never advise doing without the assistance of counsel). She contacted me when her WC claim was denied based upon the QME report. I first took a detailed history and identified several additional ailments that were likely caused by her cumulative job duties. I felt strongly that her autonomic nervous system condition met the legal definition of “Heart Trouble,” as it applies to the Labor Code’s Heart Trouble Presumption and since she was entitled to the benefit of the Heart Trouble presumption, her WC claim should be accepted. I set a re-evaluation with the QME to address the new conditions and comment upon whether this Applicant’s condition of the autonomic nervous system met the legal definition of “Heart Trouble.” The second QME report was favorable; however, the Defendant continued to deny the claim. I strengthened up the case by soliciting testimony from the QME and the Applicant’s treating physician agreeing that this Applicant’s condition met the legal definition of “Heart Trouble” and having the doctors explain their reasoning. The Defense disputed that the legal definition of “Heart Trouble” I relied upon was correct despite my feeling that the case law on the issue was clear. We won at the trial level and that decision was upheld on appeal. In the end this highly litigated case resulted in a favorable six figure settlement as well as another Panel decision further developing the case law regarding the definition of “Heart Trouble” as it applies to the California Safety Officer presumptions. This settlement was also much larger because we added body parts and conditions that the injured worker had never considered as being related to her cumulative job duties.

Workers compensation

Probation Officer vs. County of Orange 82 Cal.Comp.Cases 378

Mar 16, 2016

OUTCOME: Case won on appeal

My client is a Probation Officer. He injured his elbow at work and was hospitalized for elbow surgery. A few days later he suffered a serious abdominal infection. The Agreed Medical Evaluator determine ... d the abdominal infection was unrelated to the surgery and was caused by a diverticulitis infection spreading via the blood in the abdomen when diverticulum burst. I argued that since the infection spread via the blood, the blood borne pathogen presumption applied; however, we lost at the trial court level. I appealed and in a unanimous decision the WCAB Panel found the blood borne pathogen presumption applied and was not rebutted. Specifically, the Commissioners opined the anti-attribution clause of the presumption barred attributing the blood borne infection to the prior non-industrial diverticulitis. Defendant’s filed an appeal and in another unanimous decision, a new panel of Commissioners unanimously agreed the presumption applied and was not rebutted. Defendant's Petition for Writ of Review at the 4th District Court of Appeals was denied.

Workers compensation

Fire Fighter v. City of Costa Mesa 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 46

Jan 29, 2016

OUTCOME: Applicant Prevailed on all issues on appeal

My client was a career Fire Fighter. He had a prior Award for Valvular Heart Disease and Aortic Aneurism where he was represented by a different attorney. The medical reporting in the prior claim inclu ... ded a diagnosis of Hypertensive Heart Disease but the Stipulations with Request for Award only listed Valvular Heart Disease and the Aneurism. There was some confusion about what really was settled in the prior case because the Permanent Disability rating was higher that it should have been without the Hypertensive Heart Disease, lower than it should have been with the Hypertensive Heart Disease, and the settlement documents did not explain the discrepancy. Near the end of my client’s career, we filed an Application for Adjudication for a cumulative trauma listing numerous conditions, including Hypertensive Heart Disease. The Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) in the subsequent case opined that 20% of the Hypertensive Heart Disease should be apportioned to the prior claim. This would have resulted in several thousand dollars less in monetary benefits had the AME’s opinions been accepted. Defendant argued that the apportionment should apply both under Labor Code section 4663 (causation) and 4664 (prior award). We proceeded to trial and the initial Findings and Award applied what I felt was improper apportionment of the Hypertensive Heart Disease. I appealed and the trial judge rescinded his decision, issuing a new Findings and Award consistent with my position that apportionment of the Hypertensive Heart Disease did not apply under the law. Defendant’s appealed the new Findings and Award. The WCAB on reconsideration found that Labor Code section 4663 did not apply due to the anti-attribution clause of the “Heart Trouble” presumption. The WCAB further found that the Defendant had failed to meet their burden of proving overlap between the current Award and the prior Award. This was a heavily litigated case mostly due to the ambiguity in the prior case (where I was not the attorney). In the end, my client ended up with all workers’ compensation benefits that could be awarded under the law and his Award, including a life pension, is estimated at $221,291.11 in monetary benefits plus future medical care. These workers’ comp benefits are in addition to his normal retirement through PERS.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained