Burl Condit, vs. City Of Modesto, Permissibly Self-insured,

(STK 0188509) This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration of a decision issued on July 22, 2009. The Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner, and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition. The Board noted that even if the petitioner had not withdrawn the petition, it would have been dismissed as it was not a final order subject to reconsideration.

CITY OF MODESTO, permissibly self-insured, BURL CONDIT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABURL CONDIT, Applicant,vs.CITY OF MODESTO, permissibly self-insured, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2212207 (STK 0188509)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on July 22, 2009, has been withdrawn by the petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.            In passing, we note that even if applicant had not withdrawn his petition for reconsideration, we would have dismissed the petition. It is well settled law that reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision or award. (Labor Code section 5900). The WCJ’s determination in this case to allow further development of the record in the form of the deposition of Mohinder Nijjar, M.D., does not constitute a final order within the meaning of Section 5900. An order which does not dispose of the substantive rights and liabilities of those involved in a case is not a final order. (2 California Workers’ Compensation Practice, Cal. CEB 4 th Edition, June 2009 Update, sections 21.8-21.9, pp. 1678 -1680 .) A “final” order has been defined as one which determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4rh 1068; 65 Cal. Comp. Cases 650; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; 45 Cal. Comp. Cases 410; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3rd 39; 43 Cal. Comp. Cases 661. In this case, the WCJ granted defendant’s request to further develop the record, and allows the parties to depose Dr. Nijjar, provided the deposition occurs within a specified time frame. ,             In conclusion, if applicant had not withdrawn his petition for reconsideration, we would have dismissed it because there is no final order subject to reconsideration.            For the foregoing r

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.