Marcus Hance, vs. Hudson Mechanical; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

This case is about Marcus Hance, who applied for workers' compensation, and Hudson Mechanical and the State Compensation Insurance Fund, who sought to have the venue changed from the Santa Rosa district office to the Redding district office. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration and petition for removal, as the order denying the petition for change of venue was procedural in nature and did not dispose of the substantive rights and liabilities of those involved in the case. Furthermore, the application showed applicant's address at the time of filing as Cloverdale, California, an address in Sonoma County, where the Santa Rosa district office is located, and thus Labor Code §5501.5(a) (1) applied and the petition was correctly denied

HUDSON MECHANICAL; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MARCUS HANCE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARCUS HANCE, Applicant,vs.HUDSON MECHANICAL; STATE FOR REMOVALCOMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ504141 (STK 0204453)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION REMOVAL            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Order Denying Petition for Change of Venue, issued December 22, 2008, wherein the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that defendant’s petition for change of venue was denied.            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by failing to grant change of venue from the Santa Rosa district office to the Redding district office arguing that applicant has moved to the State of Idaho and the Redding district office, ” is the most north-eastern location in California … [ and is the] closest board to any location in the State of Idaho.” Applicant filed an answer            In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ set forth the bases for the denial of defendant’s Petition for Change of Venue. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth in the WCJ’s Report, we will dismiss defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration, because there is no order subject to reconsideration at this time, and deny defendant’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 procedural order, such as this order denying defendant’s Petition for Change of Venue, 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 41 Ed., 2007, sections 21.8 – 21.9, pp. 1605-1607.) A “final” order has been defined as one which det

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.