Martin William Haley, Ii vs. Penske Logistics; Old Republic

This case involves Martin William Haley, II, who was employed as an appliance installer and sustained an industrial injury to his left hip and lower back on June 27, 2007. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge found that the injury resulted in temporary disability which became permanent and stationary on August 11, 2008, but that no permanent disability was sustained as a result of the injury. The Judge ordered that the defendants were entitled to credit for payments made after August 11, 2008. Haley filed a petition for reconsideration, but it was dismissed as it was untimely.

Penske Logistics; Old Republic Martin William Haley, II WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARTIN WILLIAM HALEY, II Applicant,vs.PENSKE LOGISTICS; OLD REPUBLIC, Defendants.Case No. ADJ1032441 (SBR 0338213)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued June 23, 2011, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to his left hip and lower back on June 27, 2007 while employed as an appliance installer, resulting in temporary disability which became permanent and stationary on August 11, 2008. The WCJ expressly found that applicant did not sustain an industrial injury “to his headaches, internal, sleep disorder, and right hip.” The WCJ further found that applicant sustained no permanent disability as a result of this injury. The WCJ ordered that “defendants are entitled to credit for payments made after August 11, 2008.”            In a petition filed August 1, 2011, applicant asserts that he is “aggrieved by the Findings of Fact and Order” but fails to state any specifics other than the fact that “the matter was taken under submission on March 30, 2011, and the Finding and Award was not issued until June 23, 2011, nearly three (3) times the length of time provided in Labor Code §5313.”            Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein, we will dismiss applicant’s petition because it is untimely. Furthermore, even if it had been timely, we would have denied the petition insofar as applicant has failed to state the grounds for the petition for reconsideration contrary to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §10842. ,             We note that there are 25 days allowed in which to file a petition for reconsideration from a final decision which has been served by mail upon an address in California (Lab. Code § 5900(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10507). The time limi

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.