March 2016

In this case, David Saucedo (applicant) sought reconsideration of an Order issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 20, 2016, dismissing his case without prejudice on account of his failure to prosecute the matter and to timely object to the Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT). The WCJ had issued the NIT after Saucedo failed to appear at a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). The Appeals Board granted Saucedo’s Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the Order, and returned the matter to the WCJ with instructions to review Saucedo’s objection to the NIT and issue an Order consistent with her determination of the merits of that objection.

; ADJ8441244 is a case involving Carlos Racine and Menzies Aviation Group XL Insurance c/o Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, which is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. The Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issued. The Board also noted that the injuries in the case were alleged to have occurred four years ago and that the parties had utilized Agreed Medical Examiners in the fields of internal medicine, orthopedics, and psychiatry, and expected the parties to cooperate

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Martha Lomeli against Ross Department Stores and Arch Insurance, administered by Sedgwick CMS. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition to the extent it sought reconsideration and denied it to the extent it sought removal. The Board found that the decision of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge was an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue and not a “final” order, and that removal was an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Board.

In this case, Brian Chevez filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on January 5, 2016, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that applicant was permanent and stationary as of September 1, 2015, and not entitled to additional temporary disability on the present record. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration and rescinded the January 5, 2016 F&O, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the factual record regarding applicant’s temporary disability status requires further development, as the QME’s opinion in this case is conflicting and appears to condition applicant’s permanent and stationary status upon whether applicant proceeds with epid