News and Insights

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

Mary Roberts, vs. Patterson Management Group; preferred Employers Insurance O Company,

PATTERSON MANAGEMENT GROUP; PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE o COMPANY, MARY ROBERTS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARY ROBERTS, Applicant,vs.PATTERSON MANAGEMENT GROUP; REPRESENTATIVE’S PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ141203 (RIV 0057393)OPINION AND ORDERS DENYING DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND DISMISSING HEARING REPRESENTATIVE’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Defendant, and hearing representative Dan Escamilla/Legal Services Bureau (“LSB”) on behalf of lien claimant Ron Badgerow, D.C., both seek reconsideration of the Findings and Orders Re: Sanctions of August 5, 2009, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that “no attorney fees or costs will be awarded in this matter,” that defense counsel Matthew G. Markham is liable for sanctions in the amount of $600.00, and that Mr. Escamilla is liable for sanctions of $900.00.            Defendant’s petition contends, in substance, that an attorney’s failure to realize a two-day deficiency of time to notice a conference date is not a “sanctionable event,” that there is no pattern of “chronic lateness” in defendant giving notices of hearing as found by the WCJ, that the WCJ erred in finding that defendant made “material misrepresentations,” and that there is no basis for sanctions for defendant’s failure to organize its exhibits at the trial of September 14, 2008, because the District Office of the Appeals Board had instituted a rule change related to the Electronic Adjudication Management Systems (EAMS).            Mr. Escamilla’s petition for reconsideration/removal, which was filed September 1, 2009, identifies the petitioner as “David Silver, M.D.” and contends, in substance, that the lien , representative’s reliance on the untimely hearing notices which resulted in the non-appearances may have been negligent conduct but does not justify sanctions, that each non-appearance at the status conferences o

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Your email address will not be published.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 *