ADJ19334270 · June 5, 2026

The record lacked evidence as to whether applicant's attorney received the Notice of Intention or whether the failure to appear was deliberate or excusable; due process required a hearing and a record before imposing sanctions.

From the decision · page 6As a matter of due process, applicant's attorney should have been provided with a hearing, and a record should have been created. Initially, we observe that applicant may very well have "appeared" at the conference as defined in WCAB Rule 10305(c), but since the record is devoid of any evidence, we cannot make the determination as to whether applicant satisfied the requirement. While sanctions can be imposed for a "[f]ailure to appear or appearing late at a conference or trial where a reasonable excuse is not offered..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b)(1)), there is no evidence to determine if the excuse was reasonable, as no evidence has been admitted to the record. There is also no evidence regarding whether applicant's attorney received the NIT. Further, we observe that the NIT and the Order present other structural problems, as the WCJ did not specifically identify the offending person by name and only identified the law firm. Additionally, as noted previously, as part of the record, the WCJ should admit evidence as to whether the NIT and the Order were properly served on all parties.

The record was devoid of any evidence as to whether applicant's attorney received the Notice of Intention or whether the failure to appear was deliberate or excusable.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without such evidence, due process required that sanctions not be imposed and the matter be remanded for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6As a matter of due process, applicant's attorney should have been provided with a hearing, and a record should have been created. Initially, we observe that applicant may very well have "appeared" at the conference as defined in WCAB Rule 10305(c), but since the record is devoid of any evidence, we cannot make the determination as to whether applicant satisfied the requirement. While sanctions can be imposed for a "[f]ailure to appear or appearing late at a conference or trial where a reasonable excuse is not offered..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b)(1)), there is no evidence to determine if the excuse was reasonable, as no evidence has been admitted to the record. There is also no evidence regarding whether applicant's attorney received the NIT. Further, we observe that the NIT and the Order present other structural problems, as the WCJ did not specifically identify the offending person by name and only identified the law firm. Additionally, as noted previously, as part of the record, the WCJ should admit evidence as to whether the NIT and the Order were properly served on all parties.

Lab. Code § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), (b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(a)(3)

Sanctions may be imposed for bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, but only after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The WCJ must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing sanctions; here, the record did not establish that applicant's attorney received notice or had an opportunity to be heard.

From the decision · page 4II. WCAB Rule 10305(c) defines "Appear" as "to act on behalf of any party." Section 5700 clarifies that an appearance may be by the party or their agent. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752(a).) Section 5813 authorizes the WCJ to impose sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs for "bad- faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Lab. Code, § 5813(a).) The order of sanctions can be made "after written application by the party seeking sanctions or upon the appeal board's own motion." (Lab. Code, § 5813(b).) In order for the WCJ to impose sanctions and costs, the alleged offending party or attorney must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(a)(3).) Bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to

No evidence was admitted regarding whether applicant's attorney received the Notice of Intention or whether the failure to appear was deliberate or excusable.

From the decision · page 6As a matter of due process, applicant's attorney should have been provided with a hearing, and a record should have been created. Initially, we observe that applicant may very well have "appeared" at the conference as defined in WCAB Rule 10305(c), but since the record is devoid of any evidence, we cannot make the determination as to whether applicant satisfied the requirement. While sanctions can be imposed for a "[f]ailure to appear or appearing late at a conference or trial where a reasonable excuse is not offered..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b)(1)), there is no evidence to determine if the excuse was reasonable, as no evidence has been admitted to the record. There is also no evidence regarding whether applicant's attorney received the NIT. Further, we observe that the NIT and the Order present other structural problems, as the WCJ did not specifically identify the offending person by name and only identified the law firm. Additionally, as noted previously, as part of the record, the WCJ should admit evidence as to whether the NIT and the Order were properly served on all parties.