CULLIGAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND Nancy Landry WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIANANCY LANDRY, Applicant,vs.CULLIGAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY;STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCEFUND, Defendants.Case No. ADJ1153143 (SFO 0361196) ADJ4524409 (SFO 0361197)ADJ3613849 (SFO 0370846)ADJ1930444 (SFO 0370871)ORDER DENYINGPETITION FOR REMOVAL We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in said report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny removal. We observe that, on September 19, 2013, defendant did in fact file a timely objection to the Declaration of Readiness (DOR); however, the objection was captioned and filed in only one of the five cases, i.e., Case No. ADJ1 153143. However, the mere filing of this objection does not by itself entitle defendant to continue discovery and to delay trial in this case or in any of the other four cases. As stated by the presiding workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s report, defendant has not shown that prior to applicant’s September 9, 2013 DOR, it exercised reasonable diligence in completing discovery. The six applications were filed decades ago and applicant returned to California in July 2012 for her evaluations by the various Agreed Medical Evaluators (AME). Defendant had over a year after the AME evaluations to schedule their depositions, to schedule applicant’s deposition, and to schedule an evaluation with a vocational expert. In any event, removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fnt. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fni. 2].) The Appeals Board will grant remova
Menu
