ADJ103216

MFADJ7061769ADJ7167560This case is about Rosa Palafox, who was injured while working for Pelican Products, Inc. and United States Fire Insurance Company. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant’s former attorney, Martin Reiner, Esq., and imposed three $2,500 sanctions against him for filing three frivolous petitions. The Board found that the petitions did not present a lawful challenge to the WCJ’s decision and that the sanctions were necessary to deter Mr. Reiner from engaging in the same misconduct.

Pelican Products, Inc.; United States Fire Insurance Company Rosa Palafox WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROSA PALAFOX, Applicant,vs.PELICAN PRODUCTS, INC.; UNITED STATESFIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ103216 (LAO 0867367) MFADJ7061769 5 ADJ7167560OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND NOTICE OF INTENTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS            Defendant’s attorney Martin Reiner, Esq., filed what is described as a petition for …

Rosa Palafox vs. Pelican Products, Inc.; United States Fire Insurance Company Read More »

In this case, Rosa Palafox, the applicant, was challenging the decision of Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) George Reny to not disqualify WCJ Richard Shapiro from taking further action in the cases involving applicant. The defendant, through its attorney Martin Reiner, filed two Petitions for Reconsideration. The Appeals Board dismissed both petitions and returned the case to the trial level with a direction to the WCJ to issue a decision based upon the January 29, 2013 trial record. The Appeals Board also noted that it may consider removing the case for the purpose of noticing an intention to impose sanctions against Mr. Reiner for his continued misconduct.

This case is about Rosa Palafox’s workers’ compensation claim against Pelican Products Inc. and United States Fire Insurance Company. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, dismissed the defendant’s Petition for Writ of Review as frivolous and remanded the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for the purpose of making a supplemental award to the injured employee or her attorney of a reasonable attorney’s fee for services rendered in connection with the petition for the writ of review. The applicant’s attorney requested a fee of $7,125.00 for fifteen hours of legal work related to the petition for writ of review, and the Board awarded a fee of $6,000.00 based on a rate of $400.00 per

In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board issued a decision after removal and order imposing a $2,500 sanction against attorney Martin Reiner for willfully filing and verifying a frivolous Petition for Reconsideration containing a false statement of material fact. The sanction was issued for the bad faith actions and tactics described in the May 15, 2012 Opinion and Order Granting Removal on Motion of the Appeals Board and Notice of Intent to Impose $2,500 Sanction Against Attorney Martin Reiner.

This case is about Rosa Palafox’s workers’ compensation claim against Pelican Products, Inc. and United States Fire Insurance Company. The Appeals Board removed the case to itself on its own motion and issued a Notice of Intent to impose a $2,500 sanction against Attorney Martin Reiner for his bad faith action and conduct in verifying and filing a frivolous Petition for Reconsideration that contained a false material statement of fact. The Appeals Board gave Mr. Reiner the opportunity to present written objection within twenty (20) days of the service of the Notice of Intent and present written evidence or otherwise demonstrate in writing why there is not good cause to impose a $2,500 sanction against him.

This case involves Rosa Palafox, who was seeking workers’ compensation benefits from Pelican Products, Inc. and United States Fire Insurance Company. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant’s petition for disqualification of the WCJ and issued sanctions against the defendant’s attorney, Martin Reiner, for violation of Labor Code section 5813 and Appeals Board Rule 10561, subdivision (b)(9). The defendant then filed a petition for writ of review with the Court of Appeal, which was denied. The WCJ then issued a Findings and Order denying the defendant’s petition to cross-examine applicant’s attorneys regarding matters within the attorney-client privilege and ordered that Reiner pay sanctions of $1000.00 to applicant’s attorneys and to

This case involves a dispute between Rosa Palafox and Pelican Products, Inc. and United States Fire Insurance Company. Palafox’s attorneys, Graiwer & Kaplan, sought to prevent the defendants from cross-examining them regarding matters within the attorney-client privilege. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the defendants’ petition to cross-examine Palafox’s attorneys was frivolous and that Martin Reiner, the defendants’ attorney, had engaged in sanctionable conduct. The Board ordered Reiner to pay Graiwer & Kaplan $1,000 for Palafox’s attorney’s fees and costs and to forward sanctions in the amount of $2,500 to the Appeals Board. The Board also ordered Reiner to refrain

In this case, Rosa Palafox filed a workers’ compensation claim against Pelican Products, Inc. and Crum & Forster. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions of $2,500 against defendant’s counsel, Martin Reiner, for his written comments which appeared to be intended to impugn the integrity of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge. Reiner filed a response to the Notice, but the Board disagreed with his arguments and imposed the sanctions. The Board noted that similar sanctions had been imposed against Reiner in the past. The sanctions were imposed for violating Business and Professions Code Section 6068(b) and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1209(a)(

This case involves a petition for disqualification of a Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) by the defendant, Pelican Products, Inc., and its administrator, Crum & Forster, represented by their attorney, Martin Reiner. The petition was denied and a notice of intention to impose sanctions was issued due to Reiner’s outrageous language which impugned the integrity of the WCJ.