Jaime Ruano-sandoval vs. Glacier Water Services, Inc.; Crum And Forster

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Appeals Board's decision of February 4, 2013. The petition was dismissed as consecutive or successive, as the Appeals Board had already denied or dismissed the petition for reconsideration, or had reached a decision on the record without admitting and considering new evidence. The petition was also dismissed as it failed to request reconsideration.

Glacier Water Services, Inc.; Crum And Forster Jaime Ruano-Sandoval WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACase Nos. ADJ2465961 (VNO 0505993)ADJ1445462 (VNO 0538387)JAIME RUANO-SANDOVAL, Applicant,vs.GLACIER WATER SERVICES, INC.;CRUM AND FORSTER, Defendants.OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            We have considered the applicant’s attorney’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Appeals Board’s decision of February 4, 2013, and determined that it must be dismissed.            On February 4, 2013, the Appeals Board denied applicant’s original Petition for Reconsideration of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ’s) decision. Petitioner has now filed a second Petition for Reconsideration, purportedly challenging the Appeals Board’s decision.            The petition must be dismissed as consecutive or successive. When the Appeals Board has denied or dismissed a petition for reconsideration, or has reached a decision on the record without admitting and considering new evidence, the petitioning party cannot attack the Appeals Board’s action by another petition for reconsideration, but must petition for writ of review or be bound by the Appeals Board’s decision. (Crowe Glass Company v. I.A.C. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App. 287 [14 I.A.C. 221]; Navarro v. A&A Farming (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, (Appeals Board en banc), 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1364; (writ den.); 2 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Practice (4th ed Cal. CEB 2000) § 21.63, pp. 1319-1320.)            The instant petition is subject to dismissal for the additional reason that it fails to request reconsideration. Rather, the petition gratuitously explains applicant’s attorney’s failure to serve all the proper parties. The petition is a waste of time for all concerned./ / // / / ,             For the foregoing reasons,            IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s petition for reconsideration be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED.WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD_________

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.