Efren Solorzano vs. Vons Central Bakery; The Vons Companies Inc.

(LBO 0335915) is a case in which Efren Solorzano, the applicant, sought reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge. The Compromise and Release was approved in exchange for payment of $95,000.00 to the applicant by the defendant, Vons Central Bakery; The Vons Companies Inc. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as it was untimely and the Appeals Board lacked the power to grant an untimely petition.

Vons Central Bakery; The Vons Companies Inc. Efren Solorzano WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAEFREN SOLORZANO, Applicant,vs.VONS CENTRAL BAKERY; THE VONS COMPANIES INC., COMPANIES INC., Defendants.Case No. ADJ3509794 (LBO 0335915)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Order Approving Compromise and Release, issued May 11, 2010, and personally served upon applicant on that date by defense counsel1, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) approved the Compromise and Release between the parties in exchange for payment of $95,000.00 to applicant by defendant. Applicant was represented by counsel at the time of the Compromise and Release.            In a petition filed December 2, 2010, applicant contends that the WCJ erred by approving the Compromise and Release. However, applicant has failed to set forth any facts or law in support of reconsideration. Applicant’s petition is a “DWC/WCAB Form 45” which appears to state a claim of fraud but no specific examples of fraud are set forth. Defendant filed an Answer.            In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ set forth the basis for approval of the Compromise and Release, and also indicated that applicant’s petition was untimely.            Based upon our review of the record, we will dismiss applicant’s petition because it is untimely. We further note that, through no apparent fault of petitioner, the petition did not come to the attention of the Appeals Board until March 8, 2011, after expiration of the statutory time for 1            Defendant filed a verified Answer to applicant’s petition declaring that the Order Approving Compromise and Release was served upon applicant on May 11, 2010 (Answer page 4, lines 15, 16), , reconsideration. However, consistent with fundamental principles of due process, we are persuaded that the running of the 60-days

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.