Opinion
San Jose District Office
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DEIDRA E. LOWE, COMMISSIONER
Applicant, in pro per, has filed a Petition for Reconsideration. Based on our review of the Petition for Reconsideration and the record in this matter, we will dismiss the petition as skeletal.
The Labor Code requires that:
The petition for reconsideration shall set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which the petitioner considers the final order, decision or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge to be unjust or unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the appeals board. The petition shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record and shall contain a general statement of any evidence or other matters upon which the applicant relies in support thereof. (Lab. Code, § 5902, emphasis added.)
Moreover, the Appeals Board Rules provide in relevant part: (1) that “[e]very petition for reconsideration … shall fairly state all the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue [and] [e]ach contention contained in a petition for reconsideration … shall be separately stated and clearly set forth” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10842, now § 10945 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020) and (2) that “a petition for reconsideration … may be denied or dismissed if it is unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10846, now § 10972 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).
In accordance with section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10945 and 10972, the Appeals Board may dismiss or deny a petition for reconsideration if it is skeletal (e.g., Cal. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Tardiff) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 104 (writ den.); Hall v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 253 (writ den.); Green v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 564 (writ den.)); if it fails to fairly state all of the material evidence, including that not favorable to it (e.g., Addecco Employment Services v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rios) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1331 (writ den.); City of Torrance v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Moore) (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 948 (writ den.); or if it fails to specifically discuss the particular portion(s) of the record that support the petitioner’s contentions (e.g., Moore, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 948; Shelton v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 70 (writ den.).)
The petition filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore it is subject to dismissal.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DISMISSED.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
I CONCUR, CRAIG SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER, KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
JUAN RUIZ
LAW OFFICE OF MANUEL REYNOSO
STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND