zszzz WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIAALFONSO ESCOBAR,Applicant,BIMBO BAKERIES USA; GALLAGHER BASSETT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ6830729OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Order Suspending Action issued April 21, 2010,wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) suspended action ondefendant’s Petition to Compel Deposition of Applicant until defendant submitted proof of service, iproof of notice to applicant and a proposed order. The WCJ also noted that “the proposeddeponent should not be deposed again.” Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by requiring the filing of additional documents anddetermining that applicant should not be deposed. Defendant argues that it complied with electronic filing requirements and that applicant’s deposition is appropriate. Defendant further argues that defendant’s due process right to an opportunity to be heard was violated by the WCJ’sstatement in Order Suspending Action that “the proposed deponent should not be deposed again.” In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJnoted at page2: “The statement in the order suspending action that the proposed deponent should not be deposed again was only an observation. The defendant’s petition, dated April 6, 2010, stated at page 2, lines 25 and 26, that defendant served notice of the March 26, 2010 deposition on applicant and applicant’s attorney. A copy of such notice is in filenet, but it was not attached to the petition, dated , April 6, 2010. It was filed as a separate document, and it may have been overlooked by the court. It is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Reconsideration, filed on April 28, 2010 (and dated April 27, 2010), be granted, and the order suspending action, dated 4/21/2010, be vacated.” Based upon our review of the record, and for th
