Opinion
Oakland District Office
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DEIDRA E. LOWE, COMMISSIONER
On February 3, 2022, applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Reconsideration and an “Objection to Judge Lilla Szelenyi’s Findings of Fact Order for Attorney Fees.” Both consist of handwritten documents that are largely illegible and unintelligible. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated below, we will dismiss the petition.
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.
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 WCJ’s Report. To the extent that applicant continues to argue that his former attorney should not be entitled to any fee, we agree that the amount the WCJ awarded is appropriate and within the WCJ’s discretion.
Finally, we note that to the extent applicant is alleging misconduct by the defense attorney, those allegations are not relevant to the lien of applicant’s former attorney, which was the only issue set for trial.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DISMISSED.
I CONCUR,
KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR
PATRICIA A. GARCIA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
PARISS KELLY
MULLEN & FILIPPI
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES LATIMER & ASSOCIATES