No Vacancy Transport; Virginia Surety Company, Administered By Applied Risk Services, Sean Colgan, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASEAN COLGAN, Applicant,vs.NO VACANCY TRANSPORT; VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, administered by APPLIED RISK SERVICES,Defendants.Case No. ADJ2453878 (SDO 0336455)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition is successive and must be dismissed. It is well settled that where a party fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by that party unless the party is newly aggrieved. (Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177]; Ramsey v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155, 159 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 382]; Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App. 287, 293-295 [14 IAC 221].). As stated in our en bane opinion in Navarro v. A & A Framing (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299: “The general rule is that where a party has filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board, but the party does not prevail on that petition for reconsideration, the petitioning party cannot attack the [Appeal’s] Board’s action by filing a second petition for reconsideration; rather, the petitioning party must either be bound by the [Appeals] Board’s action or challenge it by filing a timely petition for writ of review.” The only exception to this general rule occurs when, although the petitioning party does not prevail on its original petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board’s decision is based on some new , and additional evidence not presented at the time of trial. In this limited circumstance only, the orig
Menu
