News and Insights

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

Idelfonso Rodrigue vs. Garden Fresh Restaurants corporation; Travelers Prop. casualty Company Of America

Garden Fresh Restaurants Corporation; Travelers Prop. Casualty Company Of America Idelfonso Rodrigue WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAIDELFONSO RODRIGUEZ, Applicant,vs.GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANTS CORPORATION; TRAVELERS PROP. CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant (s).Case No.: ADJ6786901OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENY REMOVAL            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the June 23, 2010 “Order Denying Petition to Dismiss Case” issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In that order, the WCJ denied defendant’s Petition to Dismiss the claim noting that applicant’s Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) was filed on June 2, 2010, and that defendant’s petition was premature.            In its Petition for Reconsideration, defendant contends that the WCJ erred in denying its Petition for Dismissal of this claim as premature where the Application was filed on February 21, 2009. not June 2, 2010 (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 2). No Answer was found in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) or in the file forwarded to us.            We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the record, including the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on1 Petition for Reconsideration (Report). Rased on our review of the record and for the reasons stated herein, wc will dismiss defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration and deny removal.            Reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code §§ 5900. ¡ subd. (a); 5902.) Interlocutory procedural orders are not final orders within the meaning of Labor Code section 5900. A “final” order has been defined as one “which determines any substantive , right or liability of those involved in the case.” {Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers ‘ Comp. Appeals Bd(Pointer) (1980) 104 CaI.App.3d 528 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Worke

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Your email address will not be published.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 *