Frito Lay, Permissibly Self-Insured; adjusted by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Sharon Padron, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASHARON PADRON,Applicant,vs.FRITO LAY, Permissibly Self-Insured; adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES,Defendants.Case No. ADJ4471046 (STK 0208353)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant, Sharon Padron, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, issued February 3, 2017, in which we rescinded the Findings and Award issued April 28, 2016, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the proper amount of credit, if any, to which defendant is entitled on account of applicant’s receipt of payments from employer-sponsored short-term and long-term disability. We also found the award of temporary disability from July 15, 2005 to April 18, 2011, was in excess of the 104 week cap provided in Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). Applicant contends we erred in rescinding the award of temporary disability, arguing that the 104 week cap on receipt of temporary disability benefits did not commence until applicant first received temporary disability payments on April 19, 2011, and that the WCJ’s award of temporary disability from July 15, 2005 to April 18, 2011, is based upon substantial medical evidence. Defendant has filed an answer to applicant’s petition contending that our determination with regard to the issue of temporary disability indemnity was decided correctly. We will dismiss applicant’s petition, as there is no final order from which to seek reconsideration. A petition for reconsideration is properly made only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one “which determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case.” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; , Safeway Sto
Menu
