Home/Case Law/James Staton vs. Northrop Grumman, AIG Claims Services
Regular DecisionReconsideration

James Staton vs. Northrop Grumman, AIG Claims Services

Filed: Mar 09, 2010
ADJ4362634

CompFox AI Summary

The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further proceedings because the WCJ erred in dismissing the defendant's petition for lack of prosecution without a proper evidentiary hearing and without the defendant meeting the formal requirements of WCAB Rules 10582 and 10780. The Board found insufficient evidence regarding the defendant's efforts to dismiss the case and the applicant's lack of contact. The case is remanded to allow the defendant to properly file their petition and for the WCJ to consider all evidence and ensure due process for the applicant.

Full Decision Text1 Pages

The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further proceedings because the WCJ erred in dismissing the defendant's petition for lack of prosecution without a proper evidentiary hearing and without the defendant meeting the formal requirements of WCAB Rules 10582 and 10780. The Board found insufficient evidence regarding the defendant's efforts to dismiss the case and the applicant's lack of contact. The case is remanded to allow the defendant to properly file their petition and for the WCJ to consider all evidence and ensure due process for the applicant.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

James Staton vs. Northrop Grumman, AIG Claims Services (2010) – | CompFox