News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

Carl Dixon vs. Phillips Buick,pontiac And Mazda; Clarendon National Insurance Company,administered By American All Risk Loss Administrators;security Insurance Company,administered By Lwp Claims Solutions,

Phillips Buick,pontiac and Mazda; Clarendon National Insurance Company,Administered By american all Risk Loss Administrators;Security Insurance Company,Administered By LWP claims Solutions, Carl Dixon WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIACARL DIXON,Applicant,vs. PHILLIPS BUICK, PONTIAC & MAZDA;CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCECOMPANY, Administered By AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS; SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,Administered By LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS,Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ3496977 (AHM 0123782) ADJ285268 (AHM 0123788)ADJ3502821 (AHM 0123786) ADJ4522580 (AHM 0123784)OPINION AND ORDERDENYING DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON THELAW OFFICE/S OF JACOB ROBINS            On May 24. 2010. we issued a Decision after Reconsideration as well as a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions on the Law Offices of Robin Jacobs. Defendant has filed a petition for reconsideration of our Decision after Reconsideration, and the Law Offices of Robin Jacobs has filed a Response to our NIT.1 Previously in this case, applicant, who is represented by the Law Offices of Robin Jacobs, filed a petition for reconsideration. Although the petition for reconsideration was unintelligible, we granted reconsideration on our own motion, rescinded the WCJ’s Joint Findings. Award and Order of March 22, 2010 in cases AHM 0123782 (ADJ3496977), AHM 0123784            (ADJ4522580), AHM 0123786            (ADJ3502821), andAHM 0123788 (ADJ285268), and returned this matter to the trial level to correct certaindeficiencies in his decision. As wc explained in our May 24. 2010 opinion: “We grant on our own motion because the WCJ erred by not making any express finding regarding the applicant’s date of injury in AHM 0Í 23782 (ADJ3496977), despite the fact that this was the sole issue to be adjudicated according to the minutes of the January 28. 2010 hearing. Wc also rescind because the WCJ’s apparent ,  finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury i

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *