News and Insights

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

Philip O’leary, vs. Rosendin Electric, Inc.,

ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC., PHILIP O’LEARY, ,             In his Opinion on Decision, the Arbitrator stated: “[Applicant] states that he is most frustrated with the past and present situation; that he is confused and disillusioned about the lack of legal representation he has had, and, apparently, no longer has; and, that he [is] most anxious to put this matter behind him by means of a total settlement and return to his family in Texas.”            On or about February 24, 2009, almost seven years after the execution of the Compromise and Release, applicant’s counsel Eugene P. Olivo (Olivo) filed a petition for reconsideration, contending that he had never been served with the Order Approving Compromise and Release and requesting that the appeals board set it aside and return the matter to the Arbitrator for further proceedings on the issue of attorney’s fees. We have received an answer from defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), adjusting for Fremont (in liquidation).            Section 5804 provides: “No award of compensation shall be rescinded, altered, or amend after five years from the date of injury except upon a petition by a party in interest filed within such five years …. ” Here, Olivo could have filed a petition to amend the Order Approving Compromise and Release at any time before March 8, 2004. He failed to do so. We no longer have jurisdiction to act on Olivo’s present petition.            Furthermore, Olivo offers no reason why he could not have filed his petition within the statutory deadline. He had almost two years after execution of the Compromise and Release to realize that he had not received approval in which to file a petition to amend the Order. He admitsto have waited almost two and one-half years after discovering that the requested fees had been released to applicant before filing the instant petition. This petition is barred by the doctrine of laches.            Finally, as noted above, the Arbitrator executed a pro


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Your email address will not be published.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 *