DANIEL MILBAUER, Applicant,
v.
EREZ BOOSTAN, an individual and dba AMERICAN RUNNER ATTORNEY SERVICE, uninsured; and UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND, Defendants.
No. LAO 0722567
California Workers Compensation Decisions
Workers Compensation Appeals Board State Of California
March 10, 2004
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC)
MERLE
C RABINE, CHAIRMAN.
Defendant,
the Acting Director of Industrial Relations, John M. Rea, as
administrator of the Uninsured Employers Fund
("UEF"), seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and
Decision After Reconsideration (En Banc) issued by the
Appeals Board on December 18, 2003. In that decision, the
Appeals Board affirmed the Supplemental Findings and Award
issued by the workers' compensation administrative law
judge ("WCJ") on May 8, 2003, which had found in
relevant part that applicant, Daniel Milbauer
("applicant"), sustained industrial injury on
October 17, 1994, while employed by "Erez Boostan, an
individual and dba American Runner Attorney Service," an
uninsured employer. The Appeals Board's December 18, 2003
decision also announced several procedures intended to obtain
the early and active participation of UEF either when an
injured employee has difficulty in establishing the correct
legal identity of the employer after good faith efforts, or
when UEF objects to the correct legal identity of the
employer as asserted by the employee.
In its
petition for reconsideration, UEF expressly states that it
"does not contest" the Appeals Board's
affirmance of the WCJ's May 8, 2003 finding that the
correct legal identity of applicant's employer is
"Erez Boostan, an individual and dba American Runner
Attorney Service." Instead, UEF's petition asserts,
in essence: (1) that it is newly aggrieved by the Appeals
Board's pronouncement of new procedures affecting
UEF's obligations in workers' compensation cases; (2)
that, by announcing these new procedures, the Appeals Board
went beyond the issue of employment, which was the sole
question raised by UEF's original petition for
reconsideration; (3) that, in announcing these procedures,
the Appeals Board mischaracterized UEF's efforts in this...
