Domingo Mogo vs. Cardenas Markets Inc

CARDENAS MARKETS INC DOMINGO MOGO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADOMINGO MOGO, Applicant,vs.CARDENAS MARKETS INC., Defendants.NEW AGE IMAGING and TRUE SCANLEGAL COPY SERVICE, Lien Claimants and Real Party in Interest.Case No. ADJ7332232(Los Angeles District Office)OPINION AND ORDERDISMISSING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION            In a document entitled “True Scan Legal Copy Service’s Petition for Reconsideration/Objection to Tobin Lucks’ Bill of Particulars (Defense Costs)”, lien claimant, True Scan Legal Copy Service, seeks reconsideration of defense counsel, Tobin and Lucks’s, “Bill of Particulars and request for $4,410.00 in defense costs and expenses.” Petitioning lien claimant expressly states that it is “strictly addressing (and objecting to)” Bill of Particulars and not the Findings and Order issued April 3, 2014 wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that petitioning lien claimant was “not entitled to an Award for recovery” on its lien (Finding of Fact number 2). The WCJ also found that lien claimant and its representative “knew, or should have known, that insisting on trial without relevant and probative evidence would result in the needless waste of the Court’s resources and time and increase defendant’s cost of litigation warranting sanctions under Labor Code Section 5813 and Title 8, California Code of Regulations, 10561.” (Finding of Fact number 3).            Lien claimant contends that the Bill of Particulars submitted by defense counsel is excessive because it includes attorney fees and costs incurred prior to February 18, 2014, the lien trial date. As , such, petitioner contends that the bill includes unrelated matters and suggests· that defense costs be limited to $2,582.00. Lien claimant emphasizes at page 4 line 8 of the petition: “Petitioner, True Scan, soley objects to defense attorney’s, Tobin & Lucks Bill of Particulars.”            Based upon our review of the record, and for the reas