News and Insights

SHARON BELISLE HUNTER vs. OROVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL And Its Servicing Facility, BROADSPIRE, For CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

OROVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL and its servicing facility, BROADSPIRE, for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation SHARON BELISLE HUNTER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASHARON BELISLE HUNTER, Applicant,vs.OROVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL and its servicing facility, BROADSPIRE, for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, Defendants.Case No. ADJ2099754 (RDG 0086466)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Applicant, who is not represented by an attorney, has filed a timely, unverified 1 Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board rescind the Order Compelling Applicant to Attend Deposition and Suspending Proceedings dated June 6, 2014, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered her to appear for a deposition to be taken by defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) on November 13, 2014. Applicant contends that she sustained an industrial injury on March 28, 1996, that she received a stipulated Award including future medical treatment, that she ha_s no new claims open, and that defendant has not shown good cause to take her deposition. Defendant has filed an answer.            For the reasons set forth by the WCJ in his Report and Recommendation, which we adopt and incorporate herein, we deny the petition. 1 In Lucena v. Diablo Auto Body (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1425 (significant panel decision), the panelstated:” Under some circumstances (e.g., where the petitioner is a proper applicant or a pro perdefendant … ), we may elect not to dismiss an unverified petition” (65 Cal.Comp.Cases at 1427, fn. 3(emphasis in original)). ,             Moreover, removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) T

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *