Angela Hurtault, vs.

In this case, lien claimant Lucio DiGiuseppe filed a petition seeking reconsideration and/or removal from the Joint Findings and Orders issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered the allegations and arguments of the Petition for Reconsideration and denied the petition. The Board also dismissed the alternative petition for removal, as it did not present extraordinary circumstances justifying removal.

ANGELA HURTAULT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAANGELA HURTAULT, Applicant,vs.HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP;ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ1229350 (MON 0254127)ADJ4167799 (MON 0254128)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Lien claimant, Lucio DiGiuseppe, has filed a petition seeking reconsideration and/or removal from the Joint Findings and Orders, issued April 16, 2009, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found lien claimant willfully engaged in egregious and frivolous tactics, causing unreasonable delay and expense to defendant, and ordered lien claimant to pay a sanction of $2,500, and pay defendant’s attorney’s fees of $3,040.            We have considered the allegations and arguments of the Petition for Reconsideration, and have reviewed the record in this matter and the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration of May 13, 2009, which considers, and responds to, each of the lien claimant’s contentions. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, which we adopt and incorporate as the decision of the Board, we will affirm the WCJ’s Joint Findings and Orders, and deny the petition for reconsideration.            With regard to the applicant’s alternative petition for removal, the Appeals Board’s power to remove a case to itself under Labor Code section 5310 is discretionary and is generally employed only as an extraordinary remedy. (See Butte County v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.) (Stultz) (1991) 56 Cal.Comp.Cases 312 (writ denied); Swedlow, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals , Bd. (Smith) (1985) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 476 (writ denied).) To obtain relief under this provision, WCAB Rule 10843 requires that a party must establish either that “[t]he order, decision or action will result in significant prejudice” or “irreparable harm,” and that reconsideration would not be an adeq

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.