Robert Miller, vs. Carol-carter Design & Construction; And State Compensation Insurance Fund,

This case involves a dispute between Robert Miller, the applicant, and Carol-Carter Design & Construction and the State Compensation Insurance Fund, the defendants. On February 13, 2009, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Monetary Sanctions of $500.00 against Michael Linn, Esq., the attorney for the applicant. On March 4, 2009, Linn filed a Notice of Objections and Objections, contending that he was denied due process of law because the Notice was actually served on February 17, 2009, and that he was not given the requisite 15 days notice to respond. The Appeals Board acknowledged the discrepancy and granted Linn an additional five days from the date of service of the Order

CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ROBERT MILLER, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROBERT MILLER, Applicant,vs.CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203)ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)OPINION AND ORDER ALLOWING ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTION            On February 13, 2009, we issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Monetary Sanctions of $500.00 Against Michael Linn, Esq., stating that, “absent written objection showing good cause to the contrary filed and served within ten (10) days of the date of service recited below (plus and additional five (5) days for mailing), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board shall issue an order imposing sanctions against Michael Linn, Esq. [Linn], in the sum of $500.00” (emphasis added). The date of service is recited as February 13, 2009.            On March 4, 2009, Linn filed a Notice of Objections and Objections, contending, among other things, that he was denied due process of law because our Notice was actually served on February 17, 2009, and that he “has not been afforded the requisite 15 days notice to timely respond.” He attached a copy of the envelope in which our Notice was served. The envelope is postmarked February 17, 2009.            We acknowledge that the date of actual service was not the date specified on our Notice of Intention. We are not certain as to how Linn is aggrieved by this discrepancy, since his objection was timely as to the February 17 service date. Nonetheless, because of the discrepancy, we will allow Linn an additional five days from date of service of this Order to file further objections, if , any, to the Notice of Intention.            For the foregoing reasons,            IT IS ORDERED that Michael Linn, Esq., is granted an additional five (5) days from the date of service of this Order (plus an additional five (5) days form mailing) to file objectio

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.