Mary Jane Rhodes vs. The Stanley Works Fastening Permissibly Self-insured And Adjusted By Constitution State Services

In this case, Mary Jane Rhodes filed a petition for reconsideration of an order imposing sanctions against her for multiple violations of Appeals Board rules in her successive petitions for reconsideration. The petition was denied and the stay of the order for payment of sanctions was lifted. The court warned her that the filing of continued successive petitions may result in a finding that she is a vexatious litigant.

The Stanley Works Fastening Permissibly Self-Insured And Adjusted By Constitution State Services Mary Jane Rhodes WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARY JANE RHODES, Applicant,vs.THE STANLEY WORKS FASTENING PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED AND ADJUSTED BY CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ441378 (FRE 0165034)OPINION AND ORDERS DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND LIFTING STAY OF ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS            Applicant Mary Jane Rhodes (applicant) has submitted a hand-written letter dated April 15, 2011 to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board), received at the Appeals Board on April 22, 2011, which we will treat as a petition for reconsideration. Applicant filed this petition in her own capacity pro se and apparently seeks reconsideration of our order of April 12, 2011.1            On April 12, 2011, we issued an order imposing sanctions pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Appeals Board Rule 10561 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10561) against applicant for applicant’s multiple violations of Appeals Board rules in her successive petitions for reconsideration. In addition, we issued an order that our imposition of sanctions would be stayed, so long as applicant did not file correspondence or petitions raising substantially the same or similar issues that have previously been decided. 1 Commissioner Cuneo, who was on the panel that issued the order granting defendant’s petition for reconsideration, no longer serves on the Appeals Board. Another panel member was assigned to take his place. ,             We have considered the allegations of the petition for reconsideration. Based upon our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we deny applicant’s petition for reconsideration. We lift the stay of the order for payment of sanctions. We again warn applicant that the filing of successive petitions may result in a finding that she is a vexatious litigant by the Appeals Board under Appeals Board Ru

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.