Sina Sharareh vs. City Of Walnut Creek, Et Al.,

In this case, Sina Sharareh filed a petition for disqualification of the arbitrator and removal of the case to the Appeals Board. The arbitrator had issued a Findings and Order, Opinion on Decision and Summary of Evidence on October 6, 2009, but it was unclear whether this document was served on the arbitrator. The Appeals Board granted removal on their own motion and returned the case to the Oakland district office so that a WCJ could hold a hearing to determine whether the Findings and Order was properly served. If it was not properly served, the period for filing a petition for reconsideration would begin to run.

City Of Walnut Creek, Et Al., Sina Sharareh WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASINA SHARAREH, Applicant,vs.CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, et al., Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ1420862OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            On February 24, 201Ü, applicant filed a “Petition for Disqualification of Workers’ Compensation Judge and Removal of Case to Appeals Board/’ requesting that the Appeals Board disqualify* the arbitrator in this matter’ and remove the matter to itself for decision on the merits. Applicant contends that the arbitrator circulated a proposed statement of evidence on January 12. 2009. and has taken no action since that time. Wc have received a response from defendant.            In fact, the arbitrator issued a findings and Order, Opinion on Decision and Summary of Evidence on October 6. 2009. The document was served on applicant’s attorney at 920 Country Club Drive – Ste. IB. Moraga. CA 94556. Previously, applicant had filed objections to the summary of evidence on February 2, 2009. It is not clear whether this document was served on the arbitrator. It shows applicant’s attorney’s address as 455 Moraga Road. Suite A. Moraga. CA 94556.            From the pleading presently before us, it appears that applicant’s attorney is unaware of the Findings and Order dated October 6, 2009. Applicant did not file a petition lor reconsideration from the Findings and Order. Therefore, that decision is final unless the arbitrator failed to serve applicant’s attorney at an address of record. If that is the case, the 20-day period within which to 1 Applicant refers io Arbitrator Raymond Trost as a workers’ compensation administrative iaw judge (WCJ). This is incorrect. Arbitrator Frost was appointed by the Presiding Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (PWCJ) to hear this case. He is not a WCJ. , . petition for reconsideration (see Labor Code section 5903) begins to run no earlier than the date on l| which the

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.