Danilo Yap vs. Los Angeles Department Of Water & Power Permissibly Self-insured

.opnIn this case, the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) was permissibly self-insured and Danilo Yap was the applicant. Yap sought reconsideration of an order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) that granted his attorney's petition to be relieved as attorney of record. The WCJ then issued an order vacating the prior order, noting that Yap had filed a timely petition for reconsideration. Yap argued that the WCJ erred by allowing his attorney to withdraw from the case and that defendant's counsel had improperly offered to pay applicant's counsel directly. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Yap's Petition for Reconsideration because there was no

LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER permissibly self-insured DANILO YAP WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADANILO YAP, Applicant,vs.LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER& POWER, permissibly self-insured, Defendants.Case No. ADJ4271541 (LBO 0393859)OPINION AND ORDERSDISMISSING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATIONAND DENYING PETITIONFOR REMOVAL            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Relieving Law Offices of George Henderson as Attorneys of Record issued January 22, 2014, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that applicant counsel, George Henderson’s, Petition to be Relieved as Attorney of Record for Applicant was granted. The WCJ also included in the Order “timely objection in 20 days showing good cause voids this Order.” Thereafter, on February 10, 2014, the WCJ issued the Order Vacating Order Relieving the Law Offices of George Henderson as Attorneys of Record Dated January 22, 2014. In the Order Vacating Order, the WCJ noted that applicant had “filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the January 22, 2014 Order which is equivalent to an objection” and vacated the prior Order. A status conference was ordered for April 8, 2014, which did not take place because applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration was still outstanding.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by allowing his attorney to withdraw from the case. Applicant sets forth numerous alleged misdeeds by his attorney which has allegedly placed him in a disadvantageous position. Applicant also contends that defendant’s counsel improperly offered to pay applicant’s counsel directly and that applicant’s counsel has improperly used threats of withdrawal to compel applicant to accept an insufficient settlement offer. Defendant and applicant’s counsel have filed responses to applicant’s Petition. The supplemental pleadings and responses filed by applicant, , applicant’s counsel, and defendant’s counsel have been accepted for consideratio

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.