News and Insights

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

Jose Rosas vs. Acapulco Restaurant; Zurich Insurance Company C/o Gallagher Bassett

Acapulco Restaurant; Zurich Insurance Company c/o Gallagher Bassett Jose Rosas WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSE ROSAS, Applicant,vs.ACAPULCO RESTAURANT; ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY c/o GALLAGHER BASSETT, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2931217(VNO 0518954) OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Lien claimant, Superior Chiropractic Care, seeks “reconsideration/removal” of the “order of June 28, 2011 vacating Order Allowing Lien of Superior Chiropractic of February 19, 2011.”            Petitioner contends that the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) erred by vacating the Order allowing the lien of Superior Chiropractic, issued February 19, 2011, arguing that “the defendant had only 20 days after service of the order to petition for reconsideration.” (Petition, p. 3 lines 9, 10.) Petitioner further contends that the Order vacating the prior order was improperly granted on an ex pane basis. Defendant filed an Answer.            Based upon our review of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein, we will dismiss lien claimant’s Petition for Reconsideration because there is no order which is subject to reconsideration and deny lien claimant’s Petition for Removal. However, we note that, upon return of this matter to the trial level, lien claimant may reassert its right to payment and penalties and defendant may raise its defenses to the claim.            At the outset, we note that reconsideration may be had only of a final order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900.) The WCJ’s Order vacating a prior order, does not constitute a final order within the meaning of Section 5900. An order which does not dispose of the substantive rights and liabilities of those involved in a case, is not a final order. (California Workers’ Compensation Practice, Cal. CEB 4th , Ed., June 2010, sections 21.8 – 21.9, pp. 1678-1680.) Petitioner’s lien claim has not been disallowed and upon

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Your email address will not be published.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 *