Ogden Entertainment Services, et al. Kristian Von Ritzhoff WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF, Applicant,vs.OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, et al., Defendants.Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 212034), ADJ1776170 (MON 224335)ADJ1414058 (MON 246016)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of the April 20, 2010 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration and Removal, wherein we affirmed the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Opinion and Order, dated October 29, 2009, and filed and served on November 2, 2009. The WCJ had ordered defendant to continue paying applicant temporary disability indemnity and to continue providing psychological and psychiatric treatment, and had denied applicant’s request that defendant continue providing non-psychiatric/non-psychological treatment. Applicant’s contentions are not “clearly set forth,” as required by Appeals Board Rule 10842(a) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10842(a)), and they are incomprehensible. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have not received an Answer from defendant. For the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss applicant’s petition for reconsideration. As we held in Navarro v. A & A Fanning (2002) 67 Cal. Comp. Cases 296, 299 (Appeals Board en bane), “The general rule is that, where a party has filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board, but the party does not prevail on that petition for reconsideration, the petitioning party cannot attack the Board’s action by filing a second petition for reconsideration; rather, the petitioning party must either be bound by the Board’s action or challenge it by filing a timely , petition for writ of review.” Accord, Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177, 181]; Ramsey v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 C
