Riccardo Vallejo vs. Save Mart Supermarket; Pegasus Risk Management

; ADJ8227026; ADJ8269969In this case, Riccardo Vallejo filed a Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board amend the verbal Order dated May 8, 2012, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge declined to grant his Petition to Enforce Subpoenas Duces Tecum. Vallejo also filed a letter denominated "Request for Emergency Stay Hearing" and a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR). The Appeals Board denied the petition and declined to accept the supplemental petition.

SAVE MART SUPERMARKET; PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT RICCARDO VALLEJO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARICCARDO VALLEJO, Applicant,vs.SAVE MART SUPERMARKET; PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ8227287; ADJ8227026ADJ8269969(Fresno District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Applicant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board amend the verbal Order dated May 8, 2012, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) declined to grant his Petition to Enforce Subpoenas Duces Tecum, etc., filed on May 3, 2012, at an ex parte hearing. Applicant also filed a letter denominated “Request for Emergency Stay Hearing” and a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) requesting a priority hearing on “Discovery Petition” on May 4, 2012. Applicant contends that he was entitled to documents sought by subpoenas duces tecum prior to his deposition on May 16, 2012, and that he was denied due process of law. Defendant has filed an Answer.            Applicant has filed three Applications for Adjudication of Claim. Prior to his retaining an attorney, he was examined by a qualified medical evaluator (QME) pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.1. His attorney served subpoenas duces tecum requesting documents regarding injuries prior to the current Applications. He was not satisfied with compliance. Applicant’s deposition was scheduled for May 16, 2012, and his attorney wanted the documents prior to the deposition. The WCJ declined to issue an order to enforce the subpoenas prior to a hearing on June 20, 2012, which had been set in response to applicant’s DOR. Meanwhile, the deposition went forward on May 16, 2012. If applicant had any objection to questions asked at the deposition, that objection is not part of the record. Applicant has requested and received an order allowing attorney’s fees for the deposition. ,             Neither applicant nor his attorney appeared at th

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.