Teresita C. Domingo, vs. Honeywell, Inc.; Zurich North america; Finlay Fine Jewelry Co., Chubb Group Of Insurance Companies,

In this case, Teresita C. Domingo, the applicant, was represented by Olive Richards, the lien claimant, who sought attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration and denied the lien claimant's petition for removal. The WCJ noted that the lien claimant's petition had been denied due to a lack of a showing of the legal actions taken in rendering services and the filing of a Bill of Particulars regarding the time spent on said services. The WCJ also noted that a Bill of Particulars had now been filed and the matter would be returned to the trial level for consideration of the lien claimant's request for attorney fees.

HONEYWELL, INC.; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA; FINLAY FINE JEWELRY CO., CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, TERESITA C. DOMINGO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATJON APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIATERESITA C. DOMINGO, Applicant,vs.HONEYWELL, INC.; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA; FINLAY FINE JEWELRY CO., CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ1030732 (OXN 0137440)ADJ503798 (OXN 0137441)ADJ3788329 (OXN 0137713)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING LIEN CLAIMANT’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENYING LIEN CLAIMANT’S PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Applicant counsel, Olive Richards, as lien claimant, seeks “reconsideration and/or removal” following the Denial of Petition for Attorney Fees, issued April 15, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied applicant counsel’s Petition for Attorney Fees. The WCJ noted that applicant counsel’s petition had been denied “absent a showing of the legal actions undertaken in rendering said services along with the filing of a Bill of Particulars regarding the time spent on said specific services.”            In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration/Removal, the WCJ I stated that there had been a discussion with applicant’s counsel at a hearing on April 15, 2009 identifying the deficiencies in counsel’s Petition for Attorney Fees. These deficiencies were also stated in the denial of the petition. The WCJ also noted that a Bill of Particulars has now been filed.            Applicant counsel contends that the WCJ erred by denying counsel’s Petition for Attorney Fees arguing that extensive attorney services were required to achieve the payment of benefits to 24 applicant and that attorney fees should be paid. ,             Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons stated herein, we will dismiss applicant counsel’s Petition for Reconsideration, because there is no final order subject to reconsideration, and deny applicant counsel’s Petition for Removal.            At the outset,

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.