News and Insights

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

Ruth Barrera vs. Five Star Upholstery And Drapery The Hartford And Employers Compensation Insurance Company

FIVE STAR UPHOLSTERY AND DRAPERY THE HARTFORD AND EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY RUTH BARRERA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARUTH BARRERA, Applicant,vs.FIVE STAR UPHOLSTERY AND DRAPERY;THE HARTFORD AND EMPLOYERSCOMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7472685(Anaheim District Office)OPINION AND ORDERDISMISSING PETITION FORRECONSIDERATION            We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). However, based on our review of the record, it appears the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.            Labor Code section 5903 allows twenty (20) days to file a petition for reconsideration, and the time for filing may be extended five (5) days for mailing (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 1013; WCAB Rule 10507). A petition for reconsideration is deemed filed on the day it was actually received at the appropriate district office and not on the date it was deposited in the mail. (Valle v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (1973) 38 Cal.Comp.Cases 468 (writ den.); Oliver v. Structural Services and Zenith National Ins. Co. (1978) 43 Cal.Comp.Cases 596 (Appeals Board Panel Opinion); County of Lake v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (Helbush) (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 627 (writ den.).) The time limit for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional so that the Appeals Board lacks the power to grant an untimely petition. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Scott v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008].)/ / / ,             In this case, the Order Dismissing Lien Claim issued on January 16, 2014, and service of the Order was delegated to defendant. Although the record does not disclose precisely when petitioner was served with the January 1

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Your email address will not be published.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 *