Billy Epps, vs. Triangle Environmental, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

In this case, Billy Epps sought reconsideration of a June 17, 2009 Finding and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that there is no jurisdiction to award vocational rehabilitation benefits and ordered applicant to take nothing with respect to his request for vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that applicant had not offered any evidence to support his allegations of misconduct by the Rehabilitation Unit (RU) and had not shown how misconduct by the RU would invest the WCAB with jurisdiction to award vocational rehabilitation services after December 31, 2008. The Board also noted that applicant had waited nearly four years after filing his petition to reopen before filing an RU-103 and had failed

TRIANGLE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, BILLY EPPS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABILLY EPPS, Applicant,vs.TRIANGLE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.;STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ4459609 (RDG 0084433)ADJ165897 (RDG 0084432)ADJ350688 (VNO 0548588)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 17, 2009 Finding and Order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that there is no jurisdiction to award vocational rehabilitation benefits and ordered applicant to take nothing with respect to his request for vocational rehabilitation benefits.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in failing to find that the Rehabilitation Unit (RU) engaged in “nonfeasance” by failing to issue a decision before December 31, 2008, that she erred in failing to find that the RU acted with “deliberate indifference” that prevented applicant from obtaining a vested right to rehabilitation services before January 1, 2009, that she erred in failing to find that the RU acted with “wanton disregard” of its administrative duties by failing to issue a timely decision, that she erred in failing to find that the RU “intentionally and willfully violated” applicant’s due process rights by failing to issue a timely decision, that she erred in failing to find that applicant’s right to vocational benefits were prejudiced by the RU’s “reckless actions,” and that she erred in failing to find that applicant is a qualified injured worker and entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits.            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have not received an Answer. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation , on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the petition be denied.            For the reasons expressed by the WCJ in her Report, which we adopt and inc

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.