MARK MURRAY and STATE FARM INSURANCE REGINA RUIZ, , decision is inconsistent with Labor Code section 4610 and State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sandhagen) (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 230 [73 Cal. Comp. Cases 981], and that the WCJ’s decision will result in significant prejudice and irreparable harm. The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation. We adopt and incorporate the “Facts” section of the WCJ’s Report. We do not adopt or incorporate the remainder of the Report. Defendant filed a supplemental petition for removal and reconsideration, contending, contrary to the WCJ’s Report, that defendant’s petition was timely-filed. We have considered the supplemental petition, and we agree that defendant’s petition was timely-filed. The instant decision of the WCJ relates back to the Findings of Fact of June 30, 2009, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that on December 23, 2008 applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck, back, and left wrist, and that her treating physician is Dr. Chow. In Finding 2 of the June 30, 2009 decision, the WCJ found that further medical treatment “specifically includ[es] the prescriptions for Soma and Lidoderm as more fully explained in the report of Dr. Chow dated April 6, 2009.” The WCJ vacated the foregoing finding in response to a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant. Applicant filed an answer. Since the instant decision vacates an award of specific medical treatment, we deem it to be a final order. Therefore, defendant’s petition for reconsideration herein is an adequate remedy, and we will dismiss the petition for removal. (8 Cal. Code Regs. § 10843, WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.) Turning to defendant’s petition for reconsideration, we note that according to the WCJ’s Report (Footnote 2), it is unclear whether applicant is formally represented by an attorney in this case, although an attorney has been acting on his behalf For instance, Exhibi
Menu
