Shurflo Pump Manufacturing Company; Zurich North American Insurance Company Amphavanh Soyintidsane WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAAMPHAVANH SOYINTIDSANE, Applicant,vs.SHURFLO PUMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY; ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s).Case Nos. AHM 0102872; AHM0102916OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Lien claimant Potjarin S. Viles (hereafter “lien claimant’ or “petitioner”) seeksreconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order issued by a workers’ compensationadministrative law judge (WCJ) on February 8, 2007, wherein the WCJ found that lien claimantwas entitled to reasonable payment of $90.00 for each of applicant’s visit for medical treatmentfrom August 18, 2004 through September 24, 2004, in the total amount of $1,170.00. The WCJalso found that lien claimant was entitled to reimbursement of her $100.00 Filing fee, and ordereddefendant to pay SI, 170.00 plus the Filing fee, penalty and interest. The WCJ disallowed theremainder of the lien, in the amount of $2,130.00, as lien claimant did not submit documentationregarding the services performed. As set forth below lien claimant’s petition is untimely and must be dismissed. There are 25 days allowed in which to file a petition for reconsideration from a final decision which has been served by mail upon a party at an address in California. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903, 5316; Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8. § 10507; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013.) Pursuant to Board Rule 10390 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10390), documents which are filed by mail are deemed to have been filed on the date that they are received by this Board. For a petition for reconsideration to be timely, it must have actually been received by the Appeals Board within the , statutory period. (See County of Lake v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (Helbush) (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 627 (writ denied); Harvey v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 44 Cal.Comp.Cases 165 (writ denied).) T
Menu
