Sarah Newell, vs. Spectrum Health Club; [ Aig Claim Services, Inc.,

In this case, Sarah Newell, the applicant, was sanctioned $200 by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for violating Rules 10842 and 10848. Gail Taylor, counsel for Adelson, Testan, Brundo & Jimenez, filed a petition for reconsideration, but the Board denied the petition because there was no response to the original notice of intention to impose sanctions. The Board ordered that the sanctions of $200 be paid by Gail Taylor.

SPECTRUM HEALTH CLUB; [ AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC., SARAH NEWELL, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASARAH NEWELL, Applicant,vs.SPECTRUM HEALTH CLUB;AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC., Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ941214 (GOL 0100841)ADJ4142548 (GOL 0100842)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            By petition for reconsideration filed on December 8, 2008, Gail S. Taylor (counsel) of Adelson, Testan, Brundo & Jimenez seeks reconsideration of our November 24, 2008 order sanctioning counsel $200.00 for attaching to the May 23, 2008 petition for reconsideration documents already in the record in violation of Appeals Board Rule 10842 and for filing without permission a response to applicant’s opposition brief in violation of Appeals Board Rule 10848. In our decision, we noted that we had received no response to our July 11, 2008 notice of intention to impose this sanction.            Contrary to our decision, counsel contends that a response to our notice of intention was made by letter dated July 16, 2008, a copy of which is supposedly attached to the petition for reconsideration as Exhibit A.            We have examined the attachment to the instant petition. It is a copy of a letter addressed to counsel’s client, Denise Hughes of AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., dated December 1, 2008, not counsel’s alleged July 16, 2008 letter in response to our notice of intention to sanction. It is now mid-January 2009 and we still have no response to our original notice of intention to impose sanctions. Therefore, there is no denial or explanation for violating our Rules 10842 and 10848. , Accordingly, we deny the petition for reconsideration.            For the foregoing reasons,IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed on December 8, 2008 by Gail Taylor of Adelson, Testan, Brundo & Jimenez, be, and hereby is, DENIED. Sanctions of $200.00 are payable by Gail Taylor pursuant to our November 24, 2008 order.        WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD      

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.