Reliance Inspection,Inc,dba,Steel Builders, INC; Majestic,Insurance Company Antioco Lagunes WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAANTIOCO LAGUNES,, Applicant, vs.RELIANCE INSPECTION, INC., d.b.a.STEEL BUILDERS, INC.; MAJESTICINSURANCE COMPANY,, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ6588521OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS On July 6, 2010, we issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions (Notice) of SI.000 each against applicant’s counsel, Dan Lispi (Lispi), and his firm, Law Offices of Robin Jacobs, Inc. (Jacobs), absent a timely objection in which good cause to the contrary was set forth for Lispi’s written comments which appear to be intended to impugn the integrity of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Lispi has filed a timely response to the Notice, presumably on behalf of Jacobs, as well. We have reviewed and considered the response. With regard to the proposed sanction against Jacobs, we note that Jacobs’ response does not address the statements that disparaged the WCJ’s conduct at trial and caused us to issue the Notice.1 Instead, the response states that the failure to serve defendant with a copy of its petition for reconsideration was a mistake. Jacobs’ response also asserts that she is not a frequent complainer about board decisions, and references two cases, .1 Our Notice pointed out that Lispi’s written comments appeared to be contradicted by the record in the case and were disputed by the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report). , Beverly Hills Multispecialty and Filiberto Lopez, and makes the following comment: Cases memorialize recalcitrant Board unwillingness to afford claimant due process subpoena enforcement (see more detailed exposition in the ADDENDUM, if desired). Argument is not that the Board is unable to enforce due process litigation rights, but that such cases (/others) document occasions it failed to do so (as it has, arguably, again failed herein): impos
