What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; Order Regarding Remote Trial issued on June 3, 2026, by the WCJ is rescinded; applicant's request for remote trial granted.p. 6
Petition for removal from the Order Regarding Remote Trial issued on June 3, 2026, by the WCJ, which denied the parties’ request for a remote trial on the issue of sanctions, penalties, and attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 5710.
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.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ abused discretion in denying the request for remote trial without sufficient reasons, violating due process rights and the principles of liberal pleading and amendment to conform to proof. The Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order, allowing the remote trial.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Order Regarding Remote Trial issued on June 3, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which denied the parties’ request for a remote trial on the issue of sanctions, penalties, and attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 5710. Applicant contends that good cause exists to permit remote proceedings. We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ’s Report.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ denied the parties’ request for a remote trial on June 3, 2026, without sufficient reasons.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This denial was found to be an abuse of discretion violating due process rights, justifying removal and granting of remote trial.
From the decision · page 5provided sufficient reasons to deny applicant’s request to appear electronically at the continued
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Petitioner must show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted; reconsideration must not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
The Board found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm as the trial would be completed before reconsideration could remedy the denial of remote trial.
From the decision · page 1Based on our review of the record we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the Order Regarding Remote Trial issued on June 3, 2026, and issue an order granting applicant’s request for remote trial. 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
Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 830 (Appeals Board en banc)
Only the Appeals Board has statutory authority to establish procedures and promulgate rules in workers’ compensation proceedings.
The Board emphasized its exclusive authority to establish procedures and the importance of due process and fair hearing rights in workers’ compensation proceedings.
From the decision · page 2that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, the WCJ acknowledges in the Report that removal is proper because applicant would not be able to rectify the denial of a remote trial through the reconsideration process as the trial will be completed. We agree. In our en banc decision in Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 830 (Appeals Board en banc) (Chicago Dogs), we stated that: In conducting our preliminary review, we observe that in addition to our constitutional mandate to accomplish substantial justice, the following fundamental legal principles must guide us:
Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal. Comp. Cases 830 (Appeals Board en banc)
Pleadings are liberally construed and may be amended to conform to proof in workers’ compensation proceedings.
The Board applied the principle of liberal pleading and amendment to conform to proof to ensure claims are not defeated on technicalities.
From the decision · page 2(C) In workers’ compensation proceedings, pleadings are liberally construed and may be amended to conform to proof.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10330, 10510, 10515, 10517, 10617, 10816, 10817
WCAB Rules 10330, 10510, 10515, 10517, 10617, 10816, 10817 govern procedures for hearings and electronic appearances in workers’ compensation cases.
The Board applied these rules to find that the WCJ had authority to hear and determine issues but must allow electronic appearances upon showing good cause and provide reasons if denying such requests.
From the decision · page 4WCAB Rule 10330 states in pertinent part that:
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.