CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, LAWRENCE REICHELT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD.STATE OF CALIFORNIALAWRENCE REICHELT, Applicant,vs.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2895646 (VNO 0380163)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Applicant, in pro per, seeks removal, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the deferral of applicant’s claim for travel expenses, associated with psychiatric treatment by Dr. Thomas Curtis, M.D., at the “continued status conference on June 25, 2009”. The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) noted in the “Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative Petition for Removal” (Report): “Applicant did not request that I issue an order mandating Defendant to reimburse him for these costs. There was a discussion regarding this issue but the issue was deferred. Presently, no request for reimbursement has been submitted nor any itemization of the alleged costs.” Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by failing to order defendant to reimburse applicant for travel expenses relating to treatment by Dr. Curtis. Applicant further contends that defendant has waived any objection to the travel expense claim insofar as no objection was made. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, because there is no order which is subject to reconsideration, and deny applicant’s Petition for Removal. At the outset, we note that a petition for reconsideration is properly taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been , defined as one “which determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case.” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safew
Lawrence Reichelt, vs. City Of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department,
In this case, Lawrence Reichelt, an applicant, sought removal or reconsideration of the deferral of his claim for travel expenses associated with psychiatric treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because there was no order which was subject to reconsideration and denied the Petition for Removal because there was no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The case was returned to the trial level to proceed with the resolution of the applicant's claim for additional workers' compensation benefits.
- Filed On:
- Court: California, Van Nuys
- Case No. ADJ2895646
To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days
Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!
Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.