CHRIS JOHN MUNOZ vs. INFINITY METALS, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

ADJ2618117 (VNO 0540849)This case is about Chris John Munoz, who was represented by three different law firms in a workers' compensation case against Infinity Metals, Inc. and the State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the third law firm, Perona, Langer, Beck, Serbin & Mendoza, because it was a successive petition, untimely, and the firm's argument that it should receive a greater proportion of the fees because it was the firm that actually settled the case was unpersuasive.

INFINITY METALS, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND CHRIS JOHN MUNOZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACHRIS JOHN MUNOZ,    Applicant,vs.INFINITY METALS, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCEFUND, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ4237598 (LAO 0866879)ADJ2618117 (VNO 0540849)(Long Beach District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION            Petitioner and counsel for applicant, the law firm Perona, Langer, Beck, Serbin & Mendoza (“Perona Langer”), purports to seek reconsideration of the Findings and Order served February 6, 2012, in which the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (“WCJ”) determined the attorneys’ fees payable to Perona Langer and to applicant’s two prior counsel, the Warren S. Sieder Law Corporation (“Sieder”) and the Law Offices of Michael H. Kaplan.            Perona Langer contends that it was granted an improperly small proportion of the fees, because the WCJ failed to take into account two of the factors relevant to whether a fee is “reasonable” under Labor Code section 4906(d): the time involved and the results obtained. Perona Langer further contends that we should grant it relief from our order dismissing its prior Petition for Reconsideration.            Perona Langer’s petition (“Petition”) was captioned Supplemental Petition for Reconsideration and Prayer for Relief Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437. But the current petition is, in fact, a Petition for Reconsideration of our April 17, 2012 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration, as described below. We have considered the Petition, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. We have not received an Answer. We will dismiss the Petition for the reasons set forth below.FACTS            Perona Langer first sought reconsideration of the WCJ’s February 6, 2012 Findings and Order in , a petition filed on February 24, 2012. The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation of Workers’ Compensation Admi

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.