City Of Richmond and York Douglas Murrey WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADOUGLAS MURREY, Applicant,vs.CITY OF RICHMOND and YORK, Defendants.Case No. ADJ6780757ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in said report which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. We admonish defendant for citing “evidence” that was specifically excluded from admission at the trial in this case. In its Petition for Reconsideration at page 8, lines 4-9, defendant makes reference to testimony that applicant gave during his deposition. Applicant’s deposition, however, was not admitted into evidence. (Findings and Award, July 18, 2011, Finding No. 5.) Further, on pages 7 and 8 of the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant references journal articles and reports that were not admitted into evidence. These references could be characterized as bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause delay for which defendant could be subject to sanction under Labor Code section 5813 section 10561 of the Appeals Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Finally, in view of the finding that commutation and attorney fees are to be adjusted, the parties can also adjust the start date of permanent disability indemnity. If they are unable to adjust the commencement date, they can reopen the issue at the trial level and request a finding from the WCJ. , For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that said Petition for Reconsideration be, and it hereby is, DENIED.WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD_______________________________________FRANK M. BRASSI CONCUR,_______________________________________DEIDRA E. LOWE_______________________________________RICK DIETR
