News and Insights

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

Gerardo Sanchez-grimaldo, vs. Twe Enterprises, Inc.; Seabright Insurance Company,

TWE ENTERPRISES, INC.; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, GERARDO SANCHEZ-GRIMALDO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAGERARDO SANCHEZ-GRIMALDO, Applicant,vs.TWE ENTERPRISES, INC.; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.Case No. ADJ2077858 (OAK 332331)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions, Fees and Costs (Order) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 3, 2009, wherein the WCJ issued a $1,000.00 sanction against it pursuant to Labor Code section 58131 and Appeals Board Rule 10561. Previously, on July 14, 2009, the WCJ issued a “Notice of Intention to Impose Monetary Sanctions and Award Costs and Fees” (NIT) wherein the WCJ stated that a $1,000.00 sanction would be imposed in 10 days for defendant’s failure to file a petition to terminate temporary disability, unless good cause to the contrary were shown in writing. In the underlying case, applicant claims that, while employed on September 13, 2006 as a carpenter, he sustained industrial injury to his right knee.            Defendant contends the WCJ erred in issuing sanction against it, arguing that it timely objected to the NIT. Defendant also contends that it was denied due process, arguing that its objection was overlooked by the WCJ when he stated that there was “no objection having been received within the time specified.” Defendant argues that its failure to appear at an expedited hearing held on July 6, 2009, should be excused because its attorney was under the mistaken impression that the disputed issues had been resolved and that the hearing had been taken off 1Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. , calendar. Defendant argues that its actions do not meet the “bad faith” standard under section 5813 because it mistakenly stopped payments of temporary disability indemnity.            We have conside


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Your email address will not be published.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 *