Airion Rapaport, vs. Penn/cml-ziff Davis Publishing, And California Insurance Guarantee Association By Its Servicing Facility Intercare Holding For Reliance National Insurance Company, In Liquidation,

(SFO0435675) is a case in which Airion Rapaport, the applicant, sought removal or reconsideration of an order issued by the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The order required Rapaport to execute a request for Social Security earnings and appear for a third deposition to discover information regarding Rapaport's claims. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Rapaport's Petition for Reconsideration, as there was no final order subject to reconsideration, and denied removal, as Rapaport failed to establish that the order would result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

PENN/CML-ZIFF DAVIS PUBLISHING, and CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by its servicing facility INTERCARE HOLDING for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, AIRION RAPAPORT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAAIRION RAPAPORT, Applicant,vs.PENN/CML-ZIFF DAVIS PUBLISHING, and CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEEASSOCIATION by its servicing facility INTERCARE HOLDING for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2575086 (SFO0435675)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Applicant seeks removal, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the Order issued May 22, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered applicant to execute a request for Social Security earnings and ordered applicant to appear for deposition, applicant’s third, to discover information regarding applicant’s claims since applicant’s second deposition which occurred in February of 2005.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by ordering applicant to request Social Security earnings information arguing that defendant has been dilatory in its discovery regarding applicant’s claim and should not be allowed to conduct further discovery. Likewise, applicant contends that there is no good cause to compel applicant to submit to successive depositions. Furthermore, applicant contends that prior findings establish the compensability of applicant’s claim and preclude relitigating these issues. Defendant filed an answer.            We have considered applicant’s petition and the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) with respect thereto. Based upon our review of the record and for the reasons set forth in the WCJ’s Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons set , forth herein, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, because there is no final order subject to reconsideration,

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.