SAN JOSE SHARKS; CHUBB GROUP LOS ANGELES, Adam Nittel , Defendant filed an Answer and applicant Hied a Request for Supplemental Petition for Reconsideration. Based on our review of the record and for the reaJöns stated below, we will deny j reconsideration.Initially, we note that, pursuant to Appeals Board Rule 10848. applicant filed a Request forSupplemental Petition for Reconsideration, essentially, a reply to defendant’s Answer. Pursuant to our authority, we approve of and accept defendant’s supplemental Reply. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8. § 10848.) Turning to the substantive issue, we note that we agree with applicant that the filing of an ) Application for Adjudication of Claim is not a prerequisite to a defendant’s duty to provide Labor 1 Code section 4061 notice when defendant is otherwise required to do so by law. Nevertheless, we I are not persuaded that, in this matter, defendant had a duty to provide section 4061 notice in 2001. jii Section 4660(d) describes when the 2005 Schedule applies to injuries arising before5 January-1. 2005. In relevant part, it states that: “For compensable claims arising before January 1, 2005, the schedule as reused pursuant to changes made in legislation enacted during the 2003*04 Regular and Extraordinary Sessions shall apply to the determination of permanent disabilities when there has been either no comprehensive medical-legal report or no report by a treating physician indicating the existence of permanent disability, or when the employer is not required to provide the notice required by Section 4061 to the injured worker.” (Lab. Code. § 4660(d).)’ In Aldi V. Carr, McClellan. Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn; Republic Indemniry Company ofAmerica, (2006) 71 CaJ.Comp.Cases 783 (Appeals Board en banc), we held that: “Section 4660(d) requires that the (2005 Schedule) be applied to injuries on or after the January 1, 2005 effective date of the rating schedule, subject to the s
