James Clifton earned three victories. In Quintana v. Redwing Electric and California Indemnity, ALJ Mattoon denied two claims. The ALJ concluded that the claimants' injuries, including paraplegia, which occurred while they were driving home from a family vacation, did not occur in the course and scope of employment. The ALJ was not persuaded by testimony that the claimants made the trip for business purposes. In Lindgaard v. High Country Title and State Farm, Judge Gartland denied a claim for compensation after find-

ing that claimant's testimony was not
credible. In Sandoval v. Gibson's Discount Center and R.E.M., Judge Martinez denied claimant's petition to reopen after finding that claimant failed to prove her worsened condition was related to the admitted industrial injury.

Harvey Flewelling won on appeal in Lechuga v. Adam's Mark Hotel and American Home Assurance. ICAO set aside Judge Klein's permanent total disability award to claimant. ICAO agreed that respondents were denied due process.

Mosley v. ICAO, 02CA1788 (September 11, 2003): Claimant sustained an injury in 1998 and reached maximum medical improvement in 2000. The treating physician rated claimant's permanent medical impairment at 30% of the whole person based on 16% for the cervical spine, 8% for the thoracic spine, and 10% for mental impairment. A Division-sponsored independent medical examiner (DIME) gave claimant a 36% rating based on 17% for the cervical spine, 15% for the lumbar spine, and 10% mental impairment. Employer requested a hearing to overcome the DIME's rating. Employer obtained an independent medical examination (IME), in which the physician concluded that claimant had normal function of the spine, and questioned whether claimant had any mental impairment.
  At hearing on employer's challenge of the DIME rating, claimant's attorney stated that claimant did not challenge the DIME. The ALJ determined that the DIME's lumbar rating was overcome by clear and convincing evidence. The ALJ also found that the DIME's silence regarding the thoracic spine constituted a zero percent rating, that such rating was also overcome by clear and convincing evidence, and that claimant sustained an 8% impairment of the thoracic spine. The ALJ awarded claimant permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits based upon an overall 31% rating. The ALJ also made a determination regarding claimant's AWW.
  Employer appealed the ALJ's PPD and AWW determinations. In its brief, employ-

er argued that the ALJ erred in awarding claimant PPD benefits based on the 8% thoracic component. ICAO reversed and remanded the AWW finding and affirmed the PPD rating.
  After the ALJ issued a new order that reduced claimant's AWW, employer again appealed the PPD award. In its second brief, employer argued that the whole 31% rating was erroneous. Claimant claimed that employer only challenged the 8% thoracic component in the first appeal, and was precluded from challenging the entire 31% rating in the second appeal. Claimant also sought attorney fees. ICAO again affirmed the 31% PPD award, but denied claimant's request for attorney fees. ICAO held that employer did not raise new arguments in its second appeal.
  The court of appeals also affirmed the entire 31% PPD award. The court held that employer was precluded from challenging the non-thoracic portion of the rating because it did not challenge the entire rating in its first appeal. The court also rejected employer's argument that the ALJ erred in finding that the DIME's nonrating of the thoracic spine was overcome by clear and convincing evidence, despite the fact that neither party disputed the DIME's opinion regarding the thoracic spine. The court held that ICAO erred in finding that employer did not raise new arguments in its second appeal, and remanded the issue of attorney fees back for reconsideration.

Note:  Summaries and articles should not be relied upon as authoritative for a particular case. Consult your attorneys for advice on the application of all the law to the specific facts of your case or legal problem.