Sheldon Ashmore vs. Tigetek Associates

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's Order to Pay Sanctions and Attorney Fees. The WCJ had ordered defendant, Tigetek Associates, to pay a sanction of $1000.00 to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and an attorney fee in the sum of $2,400.00 to applicant's attorney for actions intended to cause unreasonable delay in the case. The Board found that defendant did not have adequate notice of the WCJ's intention to find defendant liable for a sanction and that sanctions were not appropriate on the record. The Board granted defendant's petition and rescinded the WCJ's Order.

Tigetek Associates Sheldon Ashmore WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIA SHELDON ASHMORE, Applicant,vs.TIGETEK ASSOCIATES, Defendant.Case No. ADJ8517891OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant, Tigetek Associates, seeks reconsideration of the Order to Pay Sanctions and Attorney Fees, issued November 14, 2012, in which a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered defendant to pay a sanction of $1000.00 to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and an attorney fee in the sum of $2,400.00 to applicant’s attorney for actions intended to cause unreasonable delay in this case. The sanction order issued following an Order to Show Cause, after defendant failed to appear at two prior noticed conferences on September 25, 2012 and October 16, 2012.            Defendant contests the WCJ’s award of sanctions and attorney fees, contending it did not intentionally fail to appear at any hearing before the Appeals Board. Defendant asserts the Appeals Board failed to give defendant notice of the hearing and/or that defendant never received notice of the hearing. Defendant notes that the Appeals Board address record is incomplete as it does not contain defendant’s suite number. Defendant further asserts that it did not employ applicant, but that applicant was hired by a third party which contracted to move defendant’s furniture. Defendant seeks to be held harmless from the sanction order on the ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 473.            The WCJ has filed and served a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, while applicant has not filed an answer to defendant’s petition as of the date of this opinion. Following our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth below, we shall grant defendant’s petition and rescind the WCJ’s Order to Pay Sanctions and Attorney Fees. , I            On Augus

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.