LOUIS DOBERT vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-insured

This case involves the City and County of San Francisco, which is permissibly self-insured, and Louis Dobert, the applicant. The Appeals Board granted Dobert's petition for removal and rescinded the February 1, 2012 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings, which had granted the defendant's request to stay proceedings in the case pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against Dobert for workers' compensation fraud, insurance fraud, grand theft and attempted perjury. The Appeals Board found that it was not appropriate to stay the provision of workers' compensation benefits to Dobert pending the conclusion of his criminal case, as it would deny him the presumption of innocence and the workers' compensation benefits that had been found to be due and awarded

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, permissibly self-insured LOUIS DOBERT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALOUIS DOBERT, Applicant,vs.CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, permissibly self-insured, Defendant.Case No. ADJ2569930 (OAK 0314153)OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Defendant City and County of San Francisco seeks reconsideration of our earlier May 11, 2012 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Removal and Decision After Removal (Decision), which is incorporated by this reference, wherein we granted applicant’s petition for removal and rescinded the February 1, 2012 Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (Order) of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), who granted defendant’s request that proceedings in the case be stayed pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against applicant for workers’ compensation fraud, insurance fraud, grand theft and attempted perjury.            In his earlier Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal concerning the February 1, 2012 Order (Report), which is incorporated by this reference, the WCJ recommended that the Appeals Board grant removal and rescind his Order. In his Report the WCJ explains why he initially issued the Order granting defendant’s motion to stay proceedings before the WCAB, and then subsequently recommended that the Order be rescinded, as follows:  “On February 1, 2012, I issued the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for  Stay of Proceedings, and it is this Order which applicant now claims to be  aggrieved by. In my Order, I noted that, when I had previously denied  defendant’s June 2011 Petition to Stay Proceedings, I had not yet issued an  F&A, and consequently, at that juncture, defendant had not yet been  obligated to furnish workers’ compensation benefits to applicant.   However, I stated that that situation had now changed, because, pursuant to ,   my December 2011 Award, defendant is now obligated to

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.