ZOLMAN CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, BEHZAD OLFATPOUR, WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABEHZAD OLFATPOUR, Applicant,vs.ZOLMAN CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. OAK 0317088OPINION AND ORDERGRANTING REMOVALAND DECISION AFTERREMOVAL Applicant petitions for removal, requesting that the appeals board rescind the Order dated May 24, 2007, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) set this matter for trial, thus closing discovery pursuant to Labor Code section 5502(eX3). Applicant’s counsel contends that he did not object to defendant’s Declaration of Readiness to Proceed dated April 16, 20071 because an employee (“hearing representative”) had found other employment. Petitioner refers to this circumstance as “excusable neglect under the circumstance of the transition period.” We have not received an answer from defendant. Wc grant removal and return the case to the tnal level for another mandatory settlement conference (MSC) prior to trial, pursuant to the recommendation of the WCJ. Applicant, while employed as a project manager on December 29. 2003, sustained industrial injury to his left foot and allegedly to his right foot. After defendant requested a hearing, the case w as set for MSC on May 24, 2007. Applicant requested a continuance, which was denied by the WCJ.In his petition for removal, applicant’s counsel states: “The applicant’s case was initially being handled by Leonardo J. Flores. Hcanng Representative, who is no longer with the Weltin 1WCAB Rule 10416 (Cal. Code Regs., m. 8. § 1W16). , “Law Office. Mr. Flores was continuing to handle some cases, and was believed to be taking care of the proceedings after the employer filed a declaration of readiness to proceed, but a substitution of attorney was not filed. Due to the filing system set up in the transition period the declaration was forwarded to Mr. Flores’s offi
Menu
