Alexander Houston, vs. Western Security, Inc.; State 9 Compensation Insurance Fund,

, In this case, Western Security, Inc. and the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) sought reconsideration of an Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) awarding attorney fees to the applicant's attorney in the amount of $12,776.56. The WCJ granted the reconsideration and rescinded the order, and removed the matter to the Appeals Board on its own motion with notice of intention to impose sanctions against the applicant's attorney for bad faith conduct. The applicant's attorney was given due process to show good cause why a sanction should not be imposed.

WESTERN SECURITY, INC.; STATE 9 COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ALEXANDER HOUSTON, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAALEXANDER HOUSTON, Applicant,vs.WESTERN SECURITY, INC.; STATE AND ORDER OF REMOVALCOMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ4400200 (VNO 0501235)ADJ2300175 (VNO 0501240)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION AND ORDER OF REMOVAL ON BOARD MOTION WITH NOTICE OF INTENTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS(Labor Code section 5813)            Defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), on behalf of its insured, Western Security, Inc., seeks reconsideration of an Order, issued April 14, 2009, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) awarded attorney fees to applicant’s attorney, in the amount of $12,776.56, to be paid by defendant from funds withheld from permanent disability paid to applicant.            Defendant contends the award of attorney fees to applicant’s attorney was improper, where a previous request for such fees had been denied by a different WCJ two weeks earlier because the amount of applicant’s permanent disability had not yet been determined. Applicant’s attorney obtained the order on an ex parte basis from a second WCJ, without prior notice and apparently without disclosing to the second WCJ that the previous request had been denied.            The WCJ, in his Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, states that when the “walk through” request for attorney fees was made, he was not aware of the prior history of applicant’s attorney’s unsuccessful request for fees. He states that it would be appropriate to rescind the order granting fees and remand for proper disposition.            In an answer to defendant’s petition, applicant’s attorney does not deny defendant’s contentions, explaining that applicant’s attorney “inadvertently obtained” the ex pane order and , that it was a “mistake.” Counsel further requests that the “Order obtain

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.