Becerra v. Eastside Reservoir Project, 071797 CAWC, AHM 51304

Case DateJuly 17, 1997
CourtCalifornia
RAMON BECERRA, Applicant,
v.
EASTSIDE RESERVOIR PROJECT/ ADVANCO CONSTRUCTORS; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants.
No. AHM 51304
California Workers Compensation Decisions
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State Of California
July 17, 1997
         ORDER VACATING ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ORDER GRANTING REMOVAL, AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL           ROBERT N. RUGGLES, WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOA          On May 2, 1996, Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication which alleged that he suffered an injury to multiple parts of his body including his head, spine, and extremities on January 26, 1996, when a beam fell on his head in the course of his employment as a laborer. On October 24, 1996, defendants filed a petition for dismissal of the Application, asserting that applicant's injury is covered by the alternative dispute resolution process in Labor Code section 3201.5. When their petition for dismissal was not granted, defendants filed a Petition for Reconsideration. On March 21, 1997, due to the requirement that the Appeals Board act within sixty days (Labor Code section 5909), we granted reconsideration in order to allow sufficient opportunity to study the issues in this case. We have completed our study and, as explained below, we will vacate the order granting reconsideration, grant removal, and dismiss the Application.          Defendants filed a petition for reconsideration arguing that the workers' compensation referee (WCR) erred in refusing to grant their petition for dismissal of the Application. Pursuant to Labor Code section 5900, "Any person aggrieved directly or indirectly by any final order, decision, or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge . . . may petition the board for reconsideration . . ." [Emphasis added.] But a refusal to dismiss an Application is not a final order or decision because it does not determine a substantive right or liability of anyone involved in the case. See Kaiser Foundation Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661. Therefore, we will vacate our order granting reconsideration...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT