BRIAN MORALES; SHELBY FRAMING; CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS NETWORK; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, RAYMUNDO ALVAREZ, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARAYMUNDO ALVAREZ, Applicant,vs.BRIAN MORALES; SHELBY FRAMING; CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS NETWORK; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant.Case No. ADJ3852874 (ANA 0398778)ADJ1768842 (ANA 0398779)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) seeks reconsideration’ of the Joint Stipulation and Order of June 23, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) approved the settlement between California Contractors Network (CCN) and SCIF for benefits paid by CCN for applicant’s workers’ compensation claims herein, with SCIF agreeing to pay CCN nearly $80,000 to settle their dispute over which entity was liable for applicant’s claims. SCIF contends that the parties’ settlement should be set aside, arguing that it entered into the settlement because of its mistaken belief regarding CCN’s relationship to the employer, Shelby Framing, and that the settlement, if allowed to stand, might violate state law. CCN filed an answer to SCIF’s petition. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation (Report) addressing SCIF’s petition, which she also construed as a petition for reconsideration, and recommending that we grant reconsideration2 and return the matter to her to conduct a hearing on whether sufficient grounds exist to set aside the parties’ stipulation. 1SCIF filed a petition to set aside the June 23, 2009 Joint Stipulation and Order for “excusable mistake and/or il neglect,” which we construe as a petition for reconsideration.2The WCJ recommended that we grant reconsideration on our own motion pursuant to Labor Code section 5900, i’subdd.-b). , We have considered the allegations made in SCIF’s petition and CCN’s answer thereto, as well as the content of the R
Menu
