Cottage Bakery And Mcdonald, Administered By Gallagher Bassett Insurance Services Erasto Mungu1A Martinez (Erasto Munguia) WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAERASTO MUNGU1A MARTINEZ (ERASTO MUNGUIA), Applicant,vs.COTTAGE BAKERY and McDONALD, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT INSURANCE SERVICES, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2671394OPINION AND ORDERS DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL Defendant seeks removal, or. in the alternative, reconsideration of the July 13. 2010 Order, wherein the workers* compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) overruled defendant’s objection to applicant’s motion to call defendant’s expert witness during applicant’s case in chief under Evidence Code section 776. After defense counsel indicated that she would file a petition for reconsideration, the WCJ took the case offjcalendar before testimony was taken.1 Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in overruling its objection, arguing that Evidence Code section 776 permits applicant to call a party or a person identified with a party as an adverse witness, and defendant’s expen is neither a party nor a person identified with a party. We have received an answer from applicant. We have received a’ Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration or Removal (Report) wherein the WCJ recommends that defendant’s petition for removal be denied and that defendant’s petition for reconsideration be dismissed. 1 Defendant initially filed a handwritten petition. Defendant did not timely serve all parties with the handwritten petition. Defendant then filed and served a second typewritten petition for consideration. It was unnecessary and improper for defendant to file two petitions for reconsideration and to fail to serve the first petition on all parties. We admonish defense counsel that, in the future, she should file and serve a single typewritten petition for reconsideration or removal
