ADJ15107350 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal granted; WCJ's Order compelling in-person attendance at deposition rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

Applicant filed a petition for removal of the WCJ's Order compelling attendance at deposition, challenging the in-person attendance requirement during the pandemic.

Read the official decision →

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 / removalApplicant prevailed

Removal granted due to lack of evidentiary record and procedural due process violations in the WCJ's Order compelling in-person deposition attendance during the pandemic.

From the decision · page 2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The rules the panel named

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

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 7 10955(a)

Removal requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate remedy.

Applied to evaluate petition for removal of WCJ's Order.

From the decision · page 2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,

Lab. Code, a7a7 5313, 5815; Cal. Const., art. XIV, a7 4

WCJ must make determinations on all issues with findings and reasons, providing notice and opportunity to be heard.

Applied to assess procedural due process in WCJ's Order.

From the decision · page 3Pursuant to sections 5313 and 5815 and the California Constitution, a WCJ is charged with the duty to make determinations on all issues in controversy, to provide a statement of the reasons or grounds upon which those determinations were made, and to do so in a manner that is "expeditiously, inexpensively, and without encumbrance of any character." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Lab. Code, § 5313, 5815.) A WCJ is also required to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order, or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761, 10787; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-622 (Appeals Bd. en banc).)

ADJ15107350 · January 23, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page