Gary Byrnes WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGARY BYRNES Applicant,vs.KAR INVESTMENTS, INC., dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER; SIMPLEX GRINNELL, dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER; KURT REXIUS, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ137248 (MON 0283474) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 2, 2010 Findings and Order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a fire extinguisher repairman on May 16, 2000, sustained industrial injury to his back. The WCJ found that KAR Investments, dba Rigoli Fire Extinguisher Company, Inc. (KAR), rather than Simplex Grinnell, is the proper defendant for a Labor Code section 132a claim, and that applicant’s !?2a petition was properly served on KAR, but not on Simplex Grinnell. Ilie WCJ found that applicant failed to wcjk 1,800 hours in 2000 and was, therefore, not entitled to a “$1,000 insurance reimbursement.” The WCJ found that applicant failed to meet his burden of proving his 132a claim, under Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Rd. (Lauher) (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281 (68 Cal.Comp.Cascs 831], and he dismissed applicant’s 132a petition. Applicant contends the WCJ erred by not finding a 132 violation, arguing, 1) that the WCJ failed to find whether applicant was terminated; 2) that applicant demonstrated that he was deprived of the $1,000 alternative medical insurance benefit for discriminatory reasons; 3) that the WCJ failed to determine the liability of Simplex Grinnell under the appropriate test; 4) that there is no statute of limitations issue in this case; and, 5) that the WCJ is biased and deprived applicant of , a fair trial. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have not received any Answers. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommendi
