Opinion
Sacramento District Office
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
CRAIG SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER
Applicant, in pro per, has filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the December 17, 2021 Findings and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Based on our review of the petition and for the reasons stated in the Report, we will dismiss reconsideration.
Preliminarily, we note that it appears applicant is raising the issue of temporary disability on reconsideration. However, as noted by the WCJ in the Opinion on Decision, applicant is not entitled to temporary disability under the provisions of Labor Code section 4656(c)(2). We further note that, while this issue is not before us, it does not appear that the Employment Development Department (EDD) is asserting a lien in applicant’s case.
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.)
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, § 10945 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, § 10972.)
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.
If we were not dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration for being skeletal, we would have denied it on the merits for the reasons stated in the Report and the Opinion on Decision.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DISMISSED.
I CONCUR: JOSé H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER, ANNE SCHMITZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CONCURRING NOT SIGNING