CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather from an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The applicant's argument that her attorney lacked authority to stipulate to an AME without consultation lacked legal merit, as attorneys have authority to enter stipulations absent good cause. Finally, the applicant's attorney was admonished for causing delays and for failing to adhere to procedural rules regarding case filings and proper pleading headings.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather from an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The applicant's argument that her attorney lacked authority to stipulate to an AME without consultation lacked legal merit, as attorneys have authority to enter stipulations absent good cause. Finally, the applicant's attorney was admonished for causing delays and for failing to adhere to procedural rules regarding case filings and proper pleading headings.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.