MCCORMICK & SCHMICK MANAGEMENT GROUP; ZURICH INSURANCE BENIGNO MORENO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABENIGNO MORENO, Applicant,vs.MCCORMICK & SCHMICK MANAGEMENT GROUP; ZURICH INSURANCE, Defendants.Case No. ADJ3476047 (MON 0344273)(Marina Del Rey District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION Lien claimant, Prime Orthopedics, seeks reconsideration of the Order Dismissing Lien Claims, issued November 14, 2011 and served by mail on that date, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) dismissed the lien of Prime Orthopedics. The dismissal followed the Notice of Intent to Dismiss issued September 20, 2011, which noted that lien claimant had failed to appear at a noticed hearing. In a petition dated December 9, 2011 and filed December 12, 2011, lien claimant contends that it was never served with the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and therefore has been denied due process rights. Lien claimant admits receiving the Order Dismissing Lien. In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ noted that both the Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien and the Order Dismissing Lien showed proof of service by mail upon lien claimant. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth in the WCJ’s Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will dismiss lien claimant’s Petition for Reconsideration because it is untimely. At the outset, we note that there are 25 days allowed in which to file a petition for reconsideration from a final decision which has been served by mail upon an address in California (Lab. Code § 5900(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10507). The time limit set by Labor Code section 5903 for filing a petition for , reconsideration is jurisdictional and the Appeals Board lacks the power to grant an untimely petition. (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Scott v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (19
Menu
