Hamid Khazaeli, vs. Spedia. Com And Sysmaster Corporation; Great American Insurance Company,

In this case, Hamid Khazaeli, the applicant, sought reconsideration of an order rescinding a prior Order for Replacement Panel QME issued November 18, 2008. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because there was no order subject to reconsideration at the time and denied the Petition for Removal because there was no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. The Board also warned that filing any frivolous petitions in the future may subject the applicant to sanctions.

SPEDIA. COM and SYSMASTER CORPORATION; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, HAMID KHAZAELI, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAHAMID KHAZAELI, Applicant,vs.SPEDIA. COM and SYSMASTER FOR REMOVAL CORPORATION; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592)ADJ1224818 (SFO 0499593)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the “Order Per Rule 10859 Rescinding Order Dated 11/18/08”, issued November 22, 2008, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) rescinded a prior Order for Replacement Panel QME issued November 18, 2008. Applicant has filed two petitions. In a cover letter attached to the second petition, applicant requested that the first petition be withdrawn.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred: (1) by rescinding the “Order dated 11/18/08”; (2) by failing to address defendant’s abuse of discovery; and (3) by denying applicant’s due process rights to service of documents.            In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ set forth the bases for rescission of the “Order dated 11/18/08”. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth in the WCJ’s Report, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, because there is no order subject to reconsideration at this time, and deny applicant’s Petition for Removal.            At the outset, we note that reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Labor Code section 5900.) An interlocutory or procedural order, such as this order which addresses discovery issues, is not a final order within the meaning of Section 5900. An order, , which does not dispose of the substantive rights and liabilities of those involved in a case, is not a final order. (2 California Workers’ Compensation Practice, Cal. CEB 4’h Ed., 2007, sections 21.8 – 21.9,

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.