News and Insights

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

ROSANNE ABNET vs. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY EDUCATION OFFICE, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY EDUCATION OFFICE, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS ROSANNE ABNET WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROSANNE ABNET, Applicant,vs.SANTA BARBARA COUNTY EDUCATION OFFICE, Permissibly Self-Insured, AdministeredBy WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7687373(San Diego District Office)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Rosanne Abnet, applicant in propria persona, has filed a “Response to WCAB Judges and Ms. Pirkle [defendant’s representative].” Treating this Response as a Petition for Reconsideration of the WCAB’s Order Denying Reconsideration of April 26, 2012, we have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, and based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition as untimely. The Order Denying Reconsideration issued on April 26, 2012. Applicant did not file the Petition for Reconsideration within 25 days of the decision (20 days per Labor Code section 5903, plus 5 days for mailing per Code of Civil Procedure section 1013). Accordingly, the Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and must be dismissed.            Furthermore, this is applicant’s second Petition for Reconsideration, challenging both the original decision by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) and the Appeals Board’s decision. Thus, the petition also is subject to dismissal as consecutive or successive. When the Appeals Board denied or dismissed a petition for reconsideration, or has reached a decision on the record without admitting and considering new evidence, the petitioning party cannot attack the Appeals Board’s action by another petition for reconsideration, but must petition for writ of review or be bound by the Appeals Board’s decision. (Crowe Glass Company v. I.A.C. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App. 297 [14 I.A.C. 221); , Navarro v. A&A Farming (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, (Appeals Board en banc), 67 Cal.Comp.Case

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Your email address will not be published.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 *