“Tennyson Electric And Pacific Compensation,” George Schoppleni WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGEORGE SCHOPPLEIN, Applicantvs.TENNYSON ELECTRIC and PACIFIC COMPENSATION, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ7047418OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Applicant has filed a timely, unverified petition for removal, requesting that the Appeals Board reverse the Findings of Fact dated July 7, 2010. wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant must obtain further medical treatment within defendant’s Medical Provider Network (MPN). Applicant contends that defendant did not provide to applicant and his physician notices that are required by the I^bor Code, regulations, and our decision in Knight v. United Parcel Service (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1423 (appeals board en banc). WCAB Rule 10843(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8. § 10843(b)) provides: “The petition for removal and any answer thereto shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record.” Here, the petition is not verified. Therefore, we dismiss it. We note that if we had considered the petition on its merits, we would have denied it for reasons set forth by the WCJ in his Report and Recommendation, which we adopt and incorporate herein. , For the foregoing reasons,IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s petition for removal is DISMISSED.WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD________________________________________RONNIE G. CAPLANEI CONCUR,_________________________________________DEIDRA E. LOWE_________________________________________JAMES C. CUNEODATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAOCT 11 2010SERVICE MADE BY MAIL ON ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES AS SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD:ANTHONY RATTOGEORGE SCHOPPLEINLAUGHLIN, FALBO, LEVY & MORESIMR/rrm ADJ7047418
George Schoppleni vs. “tennyson Electric And Pacific Compensation,”
This case involves George Schopplein, who filed a petition for removal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, requesting that the Board reverse the Findings of Fact dated July 7, 2010. The petition was not verified, so the Board dismissed it. The Board noted that if they had considered the petition on its merits, they would have denied it for reasons set forth by the WCJ in his Report and Recommendation.
- Filed On:
- Court: California, San Francisco
- Case No. ADJ7047418
To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days
Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!
Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.