ADJ18995801 · September 10, 2026

The WCAB found that the defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Order to Produce was issued, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, and that the WCJ's decision lacked a record to determine good cause for the order, thus requiring rescission and return for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 4Here, as explained below, we agree with defendant that the Order to produce documents caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm because defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, without a record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ appropriately issued the Order. Thus, we will rescind the decision. Parties to a workers’ compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is “one of ‘the rudiments of fair play’ assured to every litigant....” (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal.

Defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Order to Produce was issued.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, justifying removal and rescission of the order.

From the decision · page 4Here, as explained below, we agree with defendant that the Order to produce documents caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm because defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, without a record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ appropriately issued the Order. Thus, we will rescind the decision. Parties to a workers’ compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is “one of ‘the rudiments of fair play’ assured to every litigant....” (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832

WCAB Rule 10832: The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including sanctioning a party.

The Board found the NIT is not ripe for removal or reconsideration and must be addressed by the WCJ first.

From the decision · page 3We first address the defendant’s objection to the notice of intent to impose sanctions. Per WCAB Rule 10832, “The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bord may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including, but not limited to: …(3)Sanctioning a party.” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10832.) A notice of intention (NIT) is neither an order, decision, or action ripe for removal or reconsideration. As such, the petition for removal as to the NIT is premature, and thus further proceedings on the issue of potential sanctions must be addressed by the WCJ in the first instance upon return of this matter. We agree with the WCJ that all parties must identify their full legal name including the names of the employer, insurance company, and any third-party administrator and failure to do so may subject the offending party to sanctions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10390, 10400, 10402; DiFusco v. Hands On Spa et al (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases __ (Appeals Bd. en banc); Coldiron v. Compuware Corp. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 289 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Moreover, all parties have an ongoing obligation to promptly update the official participant record if changes occur throughout the span of a case. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10390, 10400, 10402

Parties must identify their full legal name including employer, insurance company, and third-party administrator; failure may lead to sanctions.

The Board agreed with the WCJ that failure to identify parties fully may subject to sanctions.

From the decision · page 3We first address the defendant’s objection to the notice of intent to impose sanctions. Per WCAB Rule 10832, “The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bord may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including, but not limited to: …(3)Sanctioning a party.” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10832.) A notice of intention (NIT) is neither an order, decision, or action ripe for removal or reconsideration. As such, the petition for removal as to the NIT is premature, and thus further proceedings on the issue of potential sanctions must be addressed by the WCJ in the first instance upon return of this matter. We agree with the WCJ that all parties must identify their full legal name including the names of the employer, insurance company, and any third-party administrator and failure to do so may subject the offending party to sanctions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10390, 10400, 10402; DiFusco v. Hands On Spa et al (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases __ (Appeals Bd. en banc); Coldiron v. Compuware Corp. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 289 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Moreover, all parties have an ongoing obligation to promptly update the official participant record if changes occur throughout the span of a case. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if not granted.

The Board granted removal because defendant showed substantial prejudice and irreparable harm due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.

From the decision · page 38, § 10205.5.) Coldiron specifically outlines that the responsible entity must inform the Board of the appropriate parties at the earliest opportunity and no later than “at least the commencement of any litigation in the case.” (Coldiron, supra, at p. 294.) Removal 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., 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).)

Lab. Code, §§ 5313, 5903, 5952(d)

A WCJ must state reasons or grounds for determinations and base decisions on admitted evidence in the record supported by substantial evidence.

The Board found the WCJ's order lacked a record and reasons, making it impossible to review or support the decision.

From the decision · page 4(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 654, 662 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 624]; DiFusco, supra, 90 Cal.Comp.Cases __.) In the event that the statutory provisions of the Labor Code are not adequate or convenient, “on appropriate motion and on appropriate showing of good cause, the trial judge has and should exercise the authority conferred on him by § [10330] of our rules to issue such interlocutory orders relating to discovery as he determines are necessary to insure the full and fair adjudication of the matter before him, to expedite litigation and to safeguard against unfair surprise.” (Hardesty v. Mccord & Holdren (1976) 41 Cal.Comp.Cases 111, 114) While the WCJ does have the power to resolve and encourage discovery, here there was no hearing on the issue of document production and no record created. Section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the “reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made.” The WCJ’s opinion on decision “enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753,

Defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Order to Produce was issued, causing substantial prejudice and irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 4Here, as explained below, we agree with defendant that the Order to produce documents caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm because defendant was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, without a record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ appropriately issued the Order. Thus, we will rescind the decision. Parties to a workers’ compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is “one of ‘the rudiments of fair play’ assured to every litigant....” (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal.