State Of California, Department Of Transportation; State Compensation Insurance Fund; K-Mart and Sedgwick Dan Hagan WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADAN HAGAN, Applicant,vs.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; K-MARTand SEDGWICK, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2947144 (SAC 0288806)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REMOVAL On April 29, 2013, defendant Kmart Corporation/Sears Holdings Corp. (Kmart) filed a Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board find that the Petition for Removal previously filed by co- defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) was not properly served, despite the statement by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in his Report and Recommendation dated April 2, 2013. Kmart contends: “The determination that the petition for removal was properly served will cause significant prejudice and irreparable harm to Kmart as it forecloses the possibility that SCIF’s petition for removal will be denied and Kmart will be allowed to develop the record further” (page 5). SCIF has filed an Answer. Unfortunately for Kmart, we granted SCIF’s Petition for Removal on April 16, 2013, and we rescinded the Joint Findings of Fact and Order dated January 22, 2013, pursuant to the recommendation of the WCJ. Kmart’s remedy, if it was aggrieved by our Decision dated April 16, 2013, was to file a petition for removal of that decision. It failed to do so. That Decision is now final. Kmart’s present Petition for Removal is moot, and we dismiss it. We also note that if we had not dismissed the petition, we would have denied it. First, a WCJ’s statement in a Report and Recommendation is not an “order or decision” or “occurrence of an action in issue,” as required by WCAB Rule 10843(a) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(a)) as a condition , precedent to the filing of a petition for removal. Second, even if the petition for removal were
Menu
