Gurdev Singh, vs. Signature Fruit Company, Permissibly Self-insured, Adjusted By Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.,

is a case in which Signature Fruit Company, a permissibly self-insured company, was adjusted by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. Gurdev Singh, the applicant, filed a Petition to Reopen for New and Further Injury, and the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that venue for the petition be moved from Sacramento to the San Francisco District Office. The defendant argued that the WCJ erred by changing venue, and the WCJ granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the Order granting the applicant's petition for change of venue and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

SIGNATURE FRUIT COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., GURDEV SINGH, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGURDEV SINGH, Applicant,vs.SIGNATURE FRUIT COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted byGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ636095 (SAC 0343328)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Defendant petitions for removal following the Order granting applicant’s Petition for Change of Venue, signed December 4, 20081, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that venue for applicant’s Petition to Reopen for New and Further Injury could be moved from Sacramento to the San Francisco District Office.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by changing venue in this matter arguing: (1) that “there is no rational connection between any fact, the location of injury, witnesses and/or any party in this case, to the remote San Francisco WCAB”; (2) that the Order granting change of venue, without a hearing on the matter, violates defendant’s due process rights because defendant “filed a timely written objection” and a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed on the issue; (3) that the WCJ’s order does not set forth the basis for the WCJ’s finding of “good cause” to order transfer of venue from Sacramento to San Francisco; and (4) that defendant’s timely objection requires that venue “must be set where the injured employer resides on the date of filing or in the county where the injury allegedly occurred.” 1Applicant’s counsel was directed to serve defendant, however, there is no proof of service of the Order in the file. ,             In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report), the WCJ set forth the bases for the Order changing venue. However, the WCJ acknowledged that defendant’s objection was not noted prior to issuance of the Order. The WCJ stated at page 2 of the Report:       “In making th

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.