What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by attorney for Ryan Lynch Construction against State Compensation Insurance Fund, denied by WCAB panel adopting WCJ report.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
SCIF's argument disputing employment was not indisputably without merit and not solely intended to cause delay, so sanctions were not warranted.
From the decision · page 2Here, similar to the defendant in Johnson, it is our view that SCIF was within its right to dispute the evidence offered that applicant was employed by SCIF's insured, Alpha Building Company, with evidence that applicant was instead employed by petitioner's client, Ryan Lynch. As indicated in the WCJ's report, evidence did exist that Ryan Lynch may have employed applicant, thus, SCIF's argument was not "indisputably" without merit or solely intended to cause delay in violation of the WCAB Rules.1 Thus, as in Johnson, simply because SCIF did not prevail on its argument did not render its decision to raise it sanctionable. For this reason, as well as those provided in the WCJ's report, we conclude that sanctions against SCIF are not warranted in this case.