Perry Moss, vs. The Golden State Warriors; Tig Insurance Company,

is a case involving the Golden State Warriors, Tig Insurance Company, and Perry Moss. Perry Moss, the applicant, filed a Petition for Reconsideration alleging that the Compromise and Release was procured by fraud and that he has discovered new evidence in the form of a permanent disability rating that he was previously unaware of. The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending that the Petition be denied. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition as a Petition for Reconsideration and designated the Petition as a Petition to Set Aside the OACR and returned the matter to the WCJ so that a hearing may be set to consider applicant’s Petition.

The Golden State Warriors; Tig Insurance Company, Perry Moss, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPERRY MOSS,Applicant,vs.THE GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS; TIG INSURANCE COMPANY,Defendants.Case No. ADJ8714470(Santa Ana District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            On March 7, 2017, we issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration (Order) in order to study the factual and legal issues in the case. We now issue our Decision After Reconsideration.            On November 17, 2015, a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) of applicant’s claim of cumulative injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment with defendant. At the time the OACR issued, applicant was represented by an attorney. Applicant now represents himself in propria persona.1            On January 6, 2017, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition), alleging that the Compromise and Release was procured by fraud and that he has discovered new evidence in the form of a permanent disability rating that he was previously unaware of and which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at an earlier date.            The WCJ has submitted a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) in which she recommends that the Petition be denied. Defendant has filed an Answer to the Petition, urging that it be denied and the OACR be affirmed. Applicant has also filed a response to defendant’s 1 On December 7, 2016, both a Notice of Dismissal of Attorney and a Substitution of Attorney were filed, dismissing applicant’s attorney of record, and appointing applicant, in pro per, as his own legal representative. , Answer. We will accept applicant’s response as a Supplemental Petition under Rule 10848. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10848.)            We have reviewed the entire record in-this matter and given due consideration

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.