Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2016

    Default Re: California Workers Comp Sucks

    I need help. I'm a probation corrctions officer in the state of CA. WC dr said I'm now Mmi for the second time due to not wanting a surgery that he said might not fix my problem but could make it worse. So now off to work I go for the second time with no restrictions. The last time I worked my hand flared up so bad and I only worked 4.5hrs instead of 8. This lead to me getting a second cortisone shot on 4/19/16 which I never wanted. The shot caused an allergic reaction; rash, swelling and bruising. I regret getting it, im still in pain. He placed me on two week restrictions but cleared me on 5/13/16. I know I can't do my job and the WC dr does too, he stated he wrote down in my final report that my employer should consider a "change in position or to retrain" me elsewhere. Which they won't do, especially since the WC dr clears me with no restrictions. I've had two failed cortisone shots, so makes me doubt surgery, tried occupation therapy worked until I started doing strengthening, made me elbow hurt. Work made it flare up, the WC dr doesn't know where my pain is coming from since it seems to be all over the place. It started with my right wrist/hand in the right side after the first cortisone shot, it made my thumb hurt and left side of the right wrist. Then the middle of my palm started to hurt, at times it would travel to the elbow which lead to the shoulder. After I returned to work my elbow hurts more than before. I feel like the WC dr is only interested in surgery and not my well being. Who says you need a change in position but leaves it up to my employer and releases me with no type of disability. He knows for a fact u can't lift over 20 pounds. Every job requires using of your hands so I don't know what he was thinking. Please help.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 1971

    Default Re: California Workers Comp Sucks

    I disagree with you, Tony, regarding your interpretation that 'without merit' equates to 'frivolous'! The California Code of Civil Procedure, specifically, Section 128.7(b), explains in great detail what can be considered frivolous as opposed to what is reasonable concerning pleadings in a Complaint.
    You should've considered my earlier advice - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

    You're not disagreeing with me - you're disagreeing with the legal dictionary and your own source.
    Unlike you, I supply the source to support my statements - that wasn't "my interpretation"- that is the legal definition of frivolous.
    Here, I'll re-post, you obviously didn't read it.

    Of minimal importance; legally worthless.
    A frivolous suit is one without any legal merit
    In some cases, such an action might be brought in bad faith for the purpose of harrassing the defendant.
    In such a case, the individual bringing the frivolous suit might be liable for damages for Malicious Prosecution.

    You didn't even read your own source, if you did you would've agreed with me.
    Right from your source it clearly says "Frivolous" means totally and completely without merit "

    SECTION 128-130
    128.5.(b)(2) "Frivolous" means totally and completely without merit" or for
    the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.

    Also, like I said earlier, filing a civil lawsuit on the basis of a violation of 132a would be considered without merit (frivolous) unless you intended to challenge precedent established by California Court of Appeal, Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta, No. C067169 (Sept. 26, 2012)
    You would have to present a "nonfrivolous argument" to establish the basis for your challenge or you could face penalties.
    It's true that you may not face penalties, it's the courts discretion but it's a possibility.

    California Court of Appeal, Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta, No. C067169 (Sept. 26, 2012), focused on that inquiry and determined that a plaintiff cannot avail herself of section 132a as the basis of a tort action for wrongful termination.

    128.7. (a)(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are
    warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the
    extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the
    establishment of new law.

    I won't waste anymore time debunking your garbage - in the future I will just delete the nonsense and be done with it.
    If you continue to refuse to source your statements (especially when you try to undermine myself and this forum) you will be banned.
    I'm not going to beg you to follow the rules of this board - this game is officially over.
    Final Warning

    Jazzyj - you need to start a new thread, you're busting into the middle of a debate (if you want to call it that)
    I'm not going off topic at this time.

    Last edited by tony; 05-15-2016 at 04:01 PM.
    Moderator Responses are based on my personal bias, experience and research - They do not represent the views of the admin nor may be accepted in the legal community, always consult an attorney.

Similar Threads

  1. Some Employers Are Good, But Work Comp Insurance Sucks
    By purplepuppy in forum Moral, Emotional and Spiritual Support
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-14-2011, 06:57 AM
  2. Workers Comp Sucks
    By gang raped in michigan in forum Banter
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 07:20 PM
  3. Workers Comp California
    By adrian in forum California
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 04:18 PM
  4. West Virginia's Comp Sucks
    By tesstess in forum West Virginia
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-28-2006, 06:28 AM
  5. The workers compensation system sucks
    By anonymous in forum Minnesota
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-09-2003, 11:34 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Find a Lawyer