SECURITAS SEDGWICK KAMIKA BEASLEY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKAMIKA BEASLEY, Applicant,vs.SECURITAS; SEDGWICK, Defendants.Case No. ADJ8750816(Oakland District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTINGPETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISIONAFTER REMOVAL – CHANGE OF VENUE Applicant has filed a timely, verified petition for removal, requesting that the appeals board reverse the Order Denying Change of Venue dated July 8, 2014, wherein the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) denied applicant’s petition to change venue to the Oakland district office. Applicant contends that she has demonstrated good cause for change of venue because she lives in Vallejo, her injury occurred in Sacramento, and she is no longer represented by an attorney in Orange County. Defendant has filed an answer.1 Applicant, while employed as a security officer on September 10, 2010, sustained an industrial injury to multiple body parts. On February 5, 2013, she filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim and a venue verification authorizing her attorney to file the Application at the Anaheim district office, pursuant to Labor Code section 5501.5(c)2 [county where employee’s attorney maintains his or her principal place of business). On June 17, 2014, the case was apparently set for mandatory settlement conference (MSC).3 The case was apparently continued to trial on August 4, 2014. On June 30, 2014, applicant dismissed her 1 We note that defendant attached copies of documents that are already part of the adjudication file in violation of WCAB Rule 10842(c) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10842(c)).2 Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Labor Code.3 This is confirmed by the PWCJ and defendant, but neither the Minutes of Hearing nor the pretrial conference statement required by section 5502(c)(3) is in EAMS. , attorney and retained a new one, whose principal place of business is in Pacifica. The new at
Menu
