David Jaques, vs. Rydell Automotive Corporation; Insurance Company Of The West,

.1 In this case, Rydell Automotive Corporation and Insurance Company of the West are defendants in a workers' compensation case brought by David Jaques. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the December 1, 2008 Order, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. The Board granted reconsideration because the defendant did not receive adequate notice. The Board took no position on the merits of whether or not applicant's counsel may be entitled to a Labor Code section 5710 deposition attorney's fee.

RYDELL AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, DAVID JAQUES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADAVID JAQUES, Applicant,vs.RYDELL AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2468136 (VNO 0451905)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration or removal of the December 1, 2008 Order wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) reinstated an August 25, 2008 Order that defendant pay applicant’s attorney’s Labor Code section 5710 fees.1Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in ordering defendant to pay applicant’s attorney’s Labor Code section 5710 fees, arguing that the Order did not provide defendant with adequate notice as required by California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10349 and that applicant’s attorney is not entitled to Labor Code section 5710 fees because defendant did not request applicant’s deposition.            We have considered the petition for reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have not received an answer from applicant. The WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the petition be granted and the matter returned to the WCJ for further proceedings and a new decision.            For the reasons discussed by the WCJ in his report, which we adopt and incorporate by reference, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the December 1, 2008 Order and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and a new decision. We are granting reconsideration, rescinding the December 1, 2008 Order and remanding this matter to the WCJ based on his recommendation that we do so because defendant did not receive adequate notice. At present, we 1We were unable to locate the August 25, 2008 Order in either the board file or the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). , take no position on the merits of

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.