AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

  • Luis Angel Moreno Gonzalez, the worker-appellant, appealed an order suspending his workers' compensation benefits. He expressed a desire to choose his own doctor for the purpose of being close to his family for care post-surgery, claimed he had not been fully compensated, and felt discriminated against.

Procedural History

  • Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, David L. Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge, July 30, 2013.

Parties' Submissions

  • Worker-Appellant: Contended that the workers' compensation judge erred by not allowing him to choose his own doctor, claimed incomplete compensation, and alleged discrimination.
  • Employer/Insurer-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

  • Whether the worker-appellant was entitled to choose his own doctor.
  • Whether the worker-appellant was fully compensated.
  • Whether the worker-appellant was discriminated against.
  • Whether the suspension of the worker-appellant's benefits was justified.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the order suspending the worker-appellant's workers' compensation benefits.

Reasons

  • Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, concurring): The Court found the worker-appellant's arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the suspension of his workers' compensation benefits. The Court noted that the worker-appellant failed to timely appeal the original compensation order and did not provide sufficient factual or legal basis for his claims related to the suspension order. Despite the worker-appellant's untimely memorandum in opposition, he did not furnish the necessary information to challenge the proposed summary disposition effectively. The Court emphasized the appellant's responsibility to clearly point out errors in fact or law in summary calendar cases, a standard the worker-appellant did not meet.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.