Dennis Strong (deceased) vs. Applied Biological Consulting Travelers Property Casual Ty Company Of America

DENNIS STRONG (Deceased) v. APPLIED BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICAThis case involves a petition for removal filed by Dennis Strong (deceased) against Applied Biological Consulting and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. The petition was filed on June 2, 2014, against the decision of May 1, 2014. The petition was dismissed as untimely as it was not filed within 20 days of personal service of the decision. Even if the petition had been timely-filed, it would have been denied as there was no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy when a final decision issues

APPLIED BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUAL TY COMPANY OF AMERICA DENNIS STRONG (Deceased) WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADENNIS STRONG (Deceased), Applicant,vs.APPLIED BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING;TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUAL TYCOMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants.Case No. ADJ8732541(Riverside District Office)ORDER DISMISSINGPETITION FOR REMOVAL            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition as untimely. The petition was filed on June 2, 2014, against the decision of May 1, 2014. Petitioner did not file the petition within 20 days of personal service of the decision. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, section 10843.) Because the May 1, 2014 decision was personally served on the parties on that date, the Petition for Removal was due no later than May 21, 2014, without an additional five days for mailing. (See Strom v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 1309 (writ den.).)            Even if the Petition had been timely-filed, we would have denied it because there is no showing by petitioner that the May 1, 2014 decision would result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy when a final decision issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, section 10843.)/ / // / // / // / // / // / / ,             For the foregoing reasons,            IT IS ORDERED that said Petition for Removal is DISMISSED.WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDEPUTY    _____________________________________________CRISTINE E. GONDAK        I CONCUR,        _____________________________________________RONNIE G. CAPLANE        _____________________________________________MARGUERITE SWEENEY        DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA                JUL 22 2014    SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.MURPHY AUSTINSCOLL & ASSOCIATESebc ADJ87

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.