News and Insights

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

Maximo Amaya, vs. Faustino Limon’s Chair Factory; Everest National Insurance Co.,

FAUSTINO LIMON’S CHAIR FACTORY; EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., MAXIMO AMAYA, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMAXIMO AMAYA, Applicant,vs.FAUSTINO LIMON’S CHAIR FACTORY;EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2361172 (MON 0359815)OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING REMOVAL            Applicant has filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award dated August 27, 2009. Applicant contends that the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) erred in finding that “[t]here is no reliable medical evidence regarding AOE/COE as to psyche, internal, eyes, sleep, and brain and these issues are deferred with jurisdiction retained at the WCAB.” Applicant contends that the medical reports of Ronald Zlotolow, M.D., constitute substantial evidence that would support a finding of industrial injury to the deferred body parts. We have not received an answer from defendant.///////////////////// ,             A petition for reconsideration is properly taken only from a “final” order, decision or award (Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903). A “final” order has been defined as one. “which determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410, 413]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661, 665).            Here, the WCJ has deferred the issue of industrial injury to the disputed body parts. This is not a “final” order because it does not determine any substantive question. Accordingly, to the extent that the petition seeks reconsideration, it must be dismissed.            To the extent that the petition can be construed as a petition for removal, we would deny it for the reasons set forth by the WCJ in her Report and Recommend


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Your email address will not be published.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 *