McGRATH RENTCORP/MOBILE MODULAR; CRUM & FORSTER GROUP; UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE DAVID JACKSON WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADAVID JACKSON, Applicant,vs.McGRATH RENTCORP/MOBILE MODULAR; CRUM & FORSTER GROUP;UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7760679(Riverside District Office)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) on August 2, 2012, wherein the WCJ found that applicant was not an employee of defendant McGrath Rentcorp/Mobile Modular on March 15, 2011, and ordered that he take nothing on his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Applicant claims that he sustained industrial injury on March 15, 2011 to his neck, back, and left leg. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that he was an independent contractor, arguing that defendant maintained sufficient control over his work to establish that he was an employee pursuant to Labor Code sections 3351 and 3357,1 and S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Ind. Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80]. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Defendant filed an Answer. The WCJ has filed a Report & Recommendation of Judge on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be dismissed as untimely, or in the alternative, denied. Counsel for applicant has violated Appeals Board Rule 10848 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848) by attempting to file, without our permission or request, a supplemental Response and 1 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. , Declarations to the WCJ’s Report after the Petition for Reconsideration was filed. We accept and have considered the supplemental pleadings. For the reasons set forth below, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition because it is un
