San Mateo County Community College District; Keenan & Associates Thomas Martinez WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIATHOMAS MARTINEZ, Applicant,vs.SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; KEENAN & ASSOCIATES, Defendants.Case No. ADJ1906422 (SFO 0512303)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Thomas Martinez (applicant) requests rescission or, alternatively, seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact/Order (Order) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative Jaw judge (WCJ) in this case on August 26, 2010. That order directed the parties to use the medical-lcgal procedures set forth in Labor Code section 4062 as it existed prior to January 1,2005. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in directing the parties to follow the pre-January 1, 2005, medical-legal procedures set forth in Labor Code section 4062 because the premise underlying the WCJ’s Order incorrectly assumes that applicant was represented by counsel when the panel qualified medical evaluator (QMF) was obtained. Applicant urges that the Order be rescinded and the record be reopened to receive ¿yidencc on the issue of whether or not applicant was presented by counsel when the QME was obtained. Additionally, applicant asserts that because he was not represented by counsel, the panel QMF procedure was the proper*and exclusive avenue for medical-lcgal evaluation in this case. We have received a request from applicant to file a supplemental petition pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. S, § 10848, and we will deny the request. Supplemental petitions arc disfavored and applicant has not shown why the points raised in the proposed supplemental petition could not have been presented in the original petition. , We have considered the allegations of the petition for rescission or, in the alternative, reconsideration. We have also considered the contents of the report and recommendation on pet
