Gerardo Sanchez-grimaldo, vs. Twe Enterprises, Inc.; Seabright Insurance Company,

(OAK 332331) is a case in which the defendant, Seabright Insurance Company, sought reconsideration of an Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions, Fees and Costs issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge. The defendant argued that they had timely objected to the Notice of Intention to Impose Monetary Sanctions and Award Costs and Fees, and that they had been denied due process. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the August 3, 2009 Order, and substituted an Order that the defendant pay a fee of $2,662.50 to the applicant's attorney and release to the applicant the sums withheld from his retroactive temporary disability indemnity.

TWE ENTERPRISES, INC.; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, GERARDO SANCHEZ-GRIMALDO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGERARDO SANCHEZ-GRIMALDO, Applicant,vs.TWE ENTERPRISES, INC.; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.Case No. ADJ2077858 (OAK 332331)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions, Fees and Costs (Order) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 3, 2009, wherein the WCJ issued a $1,000.00 sanction against it pursuant to Labor Code section 58131 and Appeals Board Rule 10561. Previously, on July 14, 2009, the WCJ issued a “Notice of Intention to Impose Monetary Sanctions and Award Costs and Fees” (NIT) wherein the WCJ stated that a $1,000.00 sanction would be imposed in 10 days for defendant’s failure to file a petition to terminate temporary disability, unless good cause to the contrary were shown in writing. In the underlying case, applicant claims that, while employed on September 13, 2006 as a carpenter, he sustained industrial injury to his right knee.            Defendant contends the WCJ erred in issuing sanction against it, arguing that it timely objected to the NIT. Defendant also contends that it was denied due process, arguing that its objection was overlooked by the WCJ when he stated that there was “no objection having been received within the time specified.” Defendant argues that its failure to appear at an expedited hearing held on July 6, 2009, should be excused because its attorney was under the mistaken impression that the disputed issues had been resolved and that the hearing had been taken off 1Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. , calendar. Defendant argues that its actions do not meet the “bad faith” standard under section 5813 because it mistakenly stopped payments of temporary disability indemnity.            We have conside

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.