What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration GRANTED; final decision deferred pending further review of the merits and the record.
Petition for Reconsideration by Chicago Dogs/Liberty Mutual of WCJ's May 13, 2025 Findings and Order on personal jurisdiction; en banc review granted, final decision deferred.
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.
Defendant's request to present remote witness testimony was denied for failure to file a petition showing good cause before hearing; applicant's testimony on minimum contacts was unrebutted. The Board finds the record incomplete and grants reconsideration for further review.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defense did not file a petition showing good cause for remote testimony as required by CCR 10618(a).
Favours Applicant prevailed
Resulted in denial of remote testimony for defense witness, leaving applicant's testimony unrebutted.
From the decision · page 4*** The WCJ did not permit Trish Zuro to testify by telephone because the Chicago Dogs did not file a petition before the trial, showing good cause for why she should be allowed to testify remotely. Per CCR 10618(a), "If a witness intends to testify electronically, a petition showing good cause shall be filed pursuant to rule 10510 by the witness or by the party offering the witness's testimony before the hearing, and shall identify the witness and contain the witness's full legal name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number."3 There was no such petition requesting remote appearance filed in this matter.
Applicant testified to multiple contacts by Chicago Dogs with him in California to secure employment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported finding of minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction; unrebutted due to exclusion of defense witness.
Board finds the record incomplete due to exclusion of defense witness testimony and grants reconsideration for further review.
Favours neutral
Leads to remand for further proceedings on personal jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 12VI. Accordingly, we grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the May 13, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders is GRANTED.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10618(a)
If a witness intends to testify electronically, a petition showing good cause shall be filed before the hearing (CCR 10618(a)).
Defense did not file a petition showing good cause for remote testimony, so request was denied.
From the decision · page 4*** The WCJ did not permit Trish Zuro to testify by telephone because the Chicago Dogs did not file a petition before the trial, showing good cause for why she should be allowed to testify remotely. Per CCR 10618(a), "If a witness intends to testify electronically, a petition showing good cause shall be filed pursuant to rule 10510 by the witness or by the party offering the witness's testimony before the hearing, and shall identify the witness and contain the witness's full legal name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number."3 There was no such petition requesting remote appearance filed in this matter.
Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1196; Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396
Policy favors hearing on the merits; requests for electronic testimony should be readily permitted as a matter of due process.
Denial of remote testimony may violate due process and policy favoring adjudication on the merits.
From the decision · page 7It is the policy of the law to favor, whenever possible, a hearing on the merits. (Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 149]; see also Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478 [243 Cal. Rptr. 902] ("when a party in default moves promptly to seek relief, very slight evidence is required to justify a trial court's order setting aside a default.") This is particularly true in workers' compensation cases, where there is a constitutional mandate "to accomplish substantial justice in all cases." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10817(a)
A request on the record for electronic witness testimony at the beginning of the hearing, with opportunity for response, satisfies the petition requirement.
Board preliminarily concludes that on-record requests may suffice for electronic testimony.
From the decision · page 108, § 10515.) The principles of liberal pleading and amendment of pleadings to conform to proof outlined above mean that any petition should be considered on its merits and not based on its title. In considering the application of WCAB Rule 10817(c), we preliminarily conclude that a request on the record for electronic witness testimony at the beginning of the hearing, with an opportunity for any party to respond, satisfies the petition requirement and is sufficient to adjudicate the issue of electronic testimony. Moreover, we preliminarily conclude that the due process right to a fair hearing and a determination based on the merits is good cause to allow the electronic testimony of the witness. Therefore, when a witness is unable to appear in person, as a matter of due process, a request to testify electronically should be readily permitted.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's unrebutted testimony regarding Chicago Dogs' contacts with California was accepted because defense was not permitted to present remote witness testimony.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.