Bruce Mitchell vs. City And County Of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves a dispute between Bruce Mitchell (applicant) and the City and County of San Francisco (defendant) regarding a workers' compensation claim. The defendant sought reconsideration or removal of an Order Setting Aside Disposition issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied the petition for removal, finding that the Order did not constitute a final order and that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that it would suffer substantial prejudice or irreparable injury if removal was not granted.

City and County of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured Bruce Mitchell WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABRUCE MITCHELL, Applicant,vs.CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendants.Case No. ADJ4192390 (SFO 0498367)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION ANDDENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            City and County of San Francisco (defendant) seeks reconsideration or, in the alternative, removal of the Order Setting Aside Disposition (Order) issued in this case by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 2, 2010. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in issuing the Order for two reasons. First, because the effect of the WCJ’s Order is to give “applicant a legally impermissible second chance to try the same case that was already fully tried and submitted,” thereby depriving defendant of its right to due process. Second, defendant argues that the WCJ erred in concluding that a determination on applicant’s claim under 132a is relevant and inextricably related to applicant’s claim of diminished future earnings capacity and application of Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1127 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Ogilvie).            We have considered the allegations of the petition for reconsideration or, in the alternative, removal and the contents of the report and recommendation on petition for reconsideration (Report) of the WCJ. We have not received an answer from applicant.            Based upon our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss defendant’s petition for reconsideration. In addition, for the reasons discussed below and for the reasons stated by the WCJ in his Report, which we adopt and incorporate herein, we will deny the petition for removal. , Relevant Facts            Applicant, born December 13, 1969, while employed by defendant on August 28, 2006, as a police cadet, claimed to have sustained an injury arisin

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.