Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Twin City Fire Insurance, Administered by Sedgwick CMS/SRS Norma Neri WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIANORMA NERI, Applicant, vs.KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS/SRS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7157224OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release, issued June 28, 2011, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) approved the Compromise and Release entered into between the parties on May 11, 2011, resolving applicant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits in exchange for the payment of $1,500.00 “in addition to all sums which may have been paid previously.” Applicant was represented by counsel at the time the parties entered into the Compromise and Release. In an unverified and unsigned Petition for Reconsideration, applicant stated that she was not “satisfied with the decision” and she wanted an opportunity to present her case directly to a “Judge.” In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ noted the procedural background regarding applicant’s claim. The WCJ pointed out that applicant was represented by counsel on June 28, 2011 when she entered into the Compromise and Release exchange for the payment of $1,500.00. The WCJ also noted in the Report that applicant’s petition was unverified and unsigned. Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein, we will dismiss applicant’s petition because it is unverified, unsigned and fails to state the grounds for applicant’s petition for reconsideration. , At the outset, we note that Labor Code section 5902 requires verification of a petition for reconsideration. In Lucena v. Diablo Auto Body (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1425 (Significant Panel Decision), it was held that where a petition for re
