What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Order Imposing Sanctions rescinded; matter returned to district office for further proceedings.
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.
The WCJ's Order Imposing Sanctions was based on defective service and lack of evidentiary record, violating due process, so the Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the sanctions order.
From the decision · page 7First, we emphasize that defendant's Second Amended Petition lacked a valid proof of service. Next, the Second Amended Petition, the NIT, and the resulting Order imposing sanctions were served at an incorrect address for applicant's attorneys so that there was no valid service. Thus, the NIT was void ab initio, and the Order based on the NIT is void as well.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant's Second Amended Petition for Sanctions was served at the wrong address and lacked valid proof of service.