REGIS HAIRSTYLIST and ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by REM, SUSAN DADVAR, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASUSAN DADVAR, Applicant,vs.REGIS HAIRSTYLIST and ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by REM, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ3628897 (SJO 0253335)ADJ1121410 (SFO 0462353)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of this Appeals Board’s “Opinion and Decision After ii Reconsideration” of October 14, 2009, in which we reversed the Findings and Award issued by the workers compensation judge (WCJ) on June 9, 2009, and we found instead that applicant is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits by reason of the Order of Rehab dated October 15, 2007, the WCJ’s decision of July 29, 2008, the Appeals Board’s decision of September 23, 2008, or the Court of Appeal’s decision of January 8, 2009. Applicant contends, in substance, that under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1068 and Labor Code section 5956, her entitlement to vocational rehabilitation benefits and services vested on September 23, 2008, that Labor Code sections 5502(b)(3) and 5803 give the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) continuing jurisdiction to conduct hearings and make determinations to enforce these vested rights, and that defendant is estopped from asserting the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 because defendant delayed the trial proceedings in this matter. Defendant filed an answer. We will deny the petition for reconsideration for the reasons stated in our prior opinion, which we adopt and incorporate herein. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by applicant’s contentions under CCP section 1068 or by Labor Code sections 5502, 5956, or 5803. 27j , In reference to Labor Code sections 5502 and 5803, we reject applicant’s reliance on these statutes based on Weiner v. Ralphs Company (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 736, 757 [Appeals Board en banc] (“
Menu
