County Of Sacramento Delette Ziegelmann-Jackson WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADELETTE ZIEGELMANN-JACKSON, Applicant,vs.COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendants.Case No. SAC308622; SAC308623; SAC309351; SAC323463; SAC355784OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING REMOVAL, GRANTING REMOVAL, AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL Applicant petitions for removal, requesting that the appeals board rescind the order of the worker’ compensation administrative law judge WCJ) dated May 9, 2007, wherein the WCJ deferred ruling on applicant’s Petition to Enforce Subpoena Production of Records Pursued [sic]. Applicant contends that “it is significantly prejudicial to Applicant to have to incur the cost/time of a second deposition of this particular defendant (apparently referring to deponent Kim Smith).. (emphasis in original). We have not received an answer from defendant Preliminarily, we note that the WCJ stated that there arc no pending issues in case numbers SAC 308622, 338120, 323463. 309351 and 308623 (see Minutes of Conference, April 30. 2007, page 2, lines 1-6). Applicant docs not raise any issues as to these cases. As to these cases, we dismiss the petition. In case number SAC 355784, applicant, while employed as a clerical supervisor on July 18, 2006. sustained industrial injury to disputed body pans. On August 10, 2006, she filed a petition for increased benefits for discrimination pursuant to Labor Code section 132a. On August 25, 2006 she issued a subpoena duces tecum for “the entire box and contents containing the personal items of Delette Ziegelmann, this box is signed by Geoff Marsh and Delette.” Applicant filed her petition to enforce the subpoena duces tecum on November 16. 2006. , On April 30, 2007 a siaius conference was held on applicant’s petition to enforce. At that time, the WCJ ruled: “[Blecause of the compelling interest in protecting privacy that exists in the California Constitution, as well as other statutes
Menu
