Pedro Pablo Romero, vs. Mota Landscaping And Nationa Liability & Fire Insurance Co., C/o Acca,

In this case, Mota Landscaping and National Liability & Fire Insurance Co., C/O ACCA, were sued by Pedro Pablo Romero for workers' compensation. The Accurate Medical Assessment Rating Center, through its representative MBC Systems, sought reconsideration of the June 23, 2008 Order Dismissing Lien of Accurate Medical Assessment issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, finding that the June 23, 2008 Order was not procured by fraud, that the evidence did not justify the findings of fact, and that the findings of fact were not supported by the order, decision, or award. The Appeals Board also found that the lien claimant had failed to appear

MOTA LANDSCAPING and NATIONA LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE CO., C/O ACCA, PEDRO PABLO ROMERO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPEDRO PABLO ROMERO, Applicant,vs.MOTA LANDSCAPING and NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE CO., C/O ACCA, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3359609 (OAK 0331493)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Lien claimant Accurate Medical Assessment Rating Center, through its representative MBC Systems (hereafter “petitioner” or “lien claimant”), seeks reconsideration of the June 23, 2008 “Order Dismissing Lien of Accurate Medical Assessment” issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The Order provided that “[t]imely objection in 15 days showing good cause voids this Order.” Applicant’s underlying July 31, 2006 industrial injury to his spine, back and sequelae was resolved by way of a Compromise and Release approved on July 27, 2007.            In its September 25, 2008 Petition for Reconsideration, petitioner contends, in essence, that the June 23, 2008 Order was procured by fraud since defendant strategically failed to serve it with a “Notice of Intent to Dismiss” the lien and did not properly serve it with the Order. Lien claimant further contends that it was not properly served with the Order dismissing its lien because it was first served with the Order by defendant on September 17, 2008 via fax, and that it has never agreed to receive service of any document by fax. Lien claimant also contends that because of defendant’s failure to serve it with the Notice of Intent to Dismiss the lien and/or the June 23, 2008 Order dismissing the lien, it was not afforded its due process right to provide a timely response and objection. Lien claimant argues that its lien should not be dismissed as a , “default judgment” for lien claimant’s failure to appear at hearing.            Initially, we note that lien claimant’s former representative, Joanie Webster, was served on June 23, 2008 with the WCJ’s Order. Howe

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.