Elizabeth Leach, vs. Hamilton Brewart Insurance Agency, Everest Nationalinsurance Co., Administered By American Commercial Claims Administrators,

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by applicant's attorney, Wayde York, Esq., on behalf of applicant Elizabeth Leach, challenging the May 7, 2007 Findings and Award of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge. The petition was found to be untimely and was dismissed. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board also removed the case on its own motion and issued a Notice of Intention to impose sanctions of $100.00 against Wayde York for attaching photocopies of numerous documents to the petition for reconsideration in violation of WCAB Rule 10842.

HAMILTON BREWART INSURANCE AGENCY, EVEREST NATIONALINSURANCE CO., administered by AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS, ELIZABETH LEACH, WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAELIZABETH    , Applicant,vs.HAMILTON BREWART INSURANCE AGENCY, EVEREST NATIONALINSURANCE CO., administered by AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS,, Defendants).Case No.RIV 0061804OPINION AND ORDERDISMISSING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION ANDORDER OF REMOVAL ONBOARD’S MOTION WITHNOTICE OF INTENTION TOIMPOSE SANCTIONS(Lab. Code § 5813)            By petition for reconsideration served on June 12, 2007, received on June 18, 2007 by the Riverside District Office,1 applicant’s attorney, Wayde York, Esq., of the Law Offices of Don Feartherstonc, on behalf of applicant, seeks reconsideration of the May 7, 2007 Findings and Award of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found, inter alia, that applicant’s bilateral upper extremities and hands admitted industrial injury, while employed September 2002 through April 18, 2004, caused 6% permanent disability, as calculated by use of the January 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities, and there was a need for further medical treatment. Defendant has filed a response to the petition for reconsideration.            The petition is untimely on its face as pointed out by the WCJ in her Report and Recommendation served July 5, 2007. As discussed below, we have no jurisdiction to address applicant’s attorney’s argument that the WCJ erred by using the January 2005 rating schedule 1 The petition was also filed at the San Francisco District Office on June 14.2007. contrary to the NOTICE typed on the WCJ’s decision that stated that any petition fix reconsideration shall be filed only at the Riverside District Office and not with any other Board Office pursuant to WCAB Rule 10840 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8. 10840). The filing in San Francisco is not deemed filed tor any purpose. , based on the AMA Guidel

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.