ADJ12548721 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration/removal denied

Petition for reconsideration/removal filed and reviewed by WCAB panel

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The petition was timely acted upon within the 60-day period after transmission to the Appeals Board, and the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

Other disputed issueDefendant prevailed

The WCJ found a violation of section 4062.3(b) but exercised discretion to deny removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code, 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board

The Board acted on the petition within the required 60-day period, making the petition timely.

From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm

Petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

From the decision · page 4substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).)

Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803

Wide discretion to determine remedy for violation of section 4062.3(b)

The WCJ exercised discretion to deny removal despite the violation, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 5In Suon, the Appeals Board opined that "[i]n contrast to the specific remedy provided by section 4062.3(g) for an ex parte communication, the Labor Code does not provide a specific remedy for a violation of section 4062.3(b)." (Suon, supra, 83 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1815.) The decision held that the trier of fact has wide discretion to determine the appropriate remedy for a violation of section 4062.3(b). (Id.) Six potential factors were outlined for the trier of fact to

ADJ12548721 · May 23, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page