RBI Framing; Dynamic Claims Services, Inc. Fabian Hernandez WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAFABIAN HERNANDEZ, Applicant,vs.RBI FRAMING; DYNAMIC CLAIMSSERVICES, INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ8237465 (Riverside District Office) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10561) On October 1, 2012, we granted applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, and pursuant to a grant of authority under section 5813 and Appeals Board Rule 10561 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8. § 10561), we also issued a notice of our intention to impose a sanction of $1,500.00, jointly and severally against applicant’s counsel, the Law Offices of Robin Jacobs, Inc., Robin Jacobs, Esq., and Dan Lispi, Esq. We allowed 15 days, plus five days for mailing, in which to file an objection showing good cause as to why we should not impose the sanction. As explained in our Opinion and Orders Granting Reconsideration; Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10561), which we incorporate herein, the basis for our notice of intention to impose a sanction was to address applicant’s counsel’s attempt to conduct discovery after this matter was submitted for decision. We noted that applicant’s counsel’s petition to cross-examine the claims examiner also suggests an improper ex-parte communication by applicant’s counsel. On October 23, 2012, we received an untimely Objection to Notice of Intention Impose Sanctions. For the reasons stated in our October 1, 2012 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration; Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10561), and for the reasons discussed below, we will impose a sanction of $1,500.00, jointly and severally, against applicant’s counsel, the Law Offices of Robin Jacobs, Inc., Robin Jacobs, Esq., and , Dan Lispi, Esq. Applicant’s counsel
