ADJ2452007 · July 7, 2026

The WCJ issued a Minute Order requiring joinder of alleged beneficiaries of Med-1 shareholders without proper notice, hearing, or compliance with WCAB Rule 10382, violating due process rights of lien claimant and other parties.

From the decision · page 3April 6, 2026.) Lien claimant filed a Notice of Intent to Use Court Reporter at the April 6, 2026 status conference, but the WCJ issued an order denying lien claimant the right to have a court reporter at the April 6, 2026 status conference. (Notice of Intent to Use Court Reporter, April 2, 2026; Order Denying Petition, April 3, 2026.) On April 6, 2026, the status conference was held after which the Minute Order was issued by the WCJ. (Minute Order, April 6, 2026.) The WCJ ordered that “the last standing and alleged beneficiaries of the Med-1 shareholders and any other necessary parties are required to be present at any upcoming conferences. All necessary and proper parties must be joined in this action before going forward.” (Minute Order, Other/Comments.) We find no pre-trial conference statement in the record resulting from the April 6, 2026 status conference. Here, the WCJ issued a simple minute order taking this consolidated matter off calendar and did so without an evidentiary hearing, an opinion on decision, or a minutes of hearing and summary of evidence. Normally, this would not present an issue of due process. However, the WCJ also issued an additional, somewhat ambiguous order that “the last standing and alleged beneficiaries of the Med-1 shareholders” (the shareholders) are necessary parties that must be joined.

The WCJ issued a Minute Order requiring joinder of alleged beneficiaries of Med-1 shareholders without an evidentiary hearing or opinion on decision.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This violated due process rights by denying notice and a fair hearing, which is irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 3April 6, 2026.) Lien claimant filed a Notice of Intent to Use Court Reporter at the April 6, 2026 status conference, but the WCJ issued an order denying lien claimant the right to have a court reporter at the April 6, 2026 status conference. (Notice of Intent to Use Court Reporter, April 2, 2026; Order Denying Petition, April 3, 2026.) On April 6, 2026, the status conference was held after which the Minute Order was issued by the WCJ. (Minute Order, April 6, 2026.) The WCJ ordered that “the last standing and alleged beneficiaries of the Med-1 shareholders and any other necessary parties are required to be present at any upcoming conferences. All necessary and proper parties must be joined in this action before going forward.” (Minute Order, Other/Comments.) We find no pre-trial conference statement in the record resulting from the April 6, 2026 status conference. Here, the WCJ issued a simple minute order taking this consolidated matter off calendar and did so without an evidentiary hearing, an opinion on decision, or a minutes of hearing and summary of evidence. Normally, this would not present an issue of due process. However, the WCJ also issued an additional, somewhat ambiguous order that “the last standing and alleged beneficiaries of the Med-1 shareholders” (the shareholders) are necessary parties that must be joined.

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

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is inadequate.

Lien claimant demonstrated irreparable harm due to denial of due process in joinder order without notice or hearing.

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, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if 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.) In addition, petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision averse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) On March 13, 2026, SCIF filed a declaration of readiness to proceed (DOR) stating that a hearing was required to assist the parties “create a PTCS [pre-trial conference statement].” (DOR, March 13, 2026, p. 2.) The matter was set for status conference on April 6, 2026. (Minute Order,

Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

A WCJ must provide findings of fact, orders, and a summary of evidence and reasons for the decision to enable meaningful review and due process.

The Minute Order lacked an opinion on decision or summary of evidence, preventing meaningful review and violating due process.

From the decision · page 3(Minute Order, Other/Comments.) Lien claimant sought removal because of this additional order. As an initial matter, an adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for a WCJ’s decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Section 5313 requires that together with findings of fact, orders, and/or awards, a WCJ “shall” serve “a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made.” (Lab. Code, § 5313; see Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (Blackledge) (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22.) A 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 [removal] more meaningful.” (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 476, citing Evans v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) The Minute Order was issued without any minute order addendum or opinion on decision identifying the evidentiary and legal grounds for the order, which makes it impossible for the Appeals Board to review the evidentiary or legal justification for the WCJ’s orders. In addition,

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10382

Joinder requires a petition or notice of intention to join and a 10-day waiting period before joining a party, unless waived.

The WCJ's order for joinder was void as no petition or notice was filed and no 10-day waiting period was observed, violating due process.

From the decision · page 4The Appeals Board or a workers’ compensation judge may order the joinder of additional parties not named in the Application for Adjudication of Claim, whose presence is necessary for the full adjudication of the case. A party shall not be joined until 10 days after service of either a petition for joinder by a party or a notice of intention to order joinder issued by a workers’ compensation judge, unless the party to be joined waives its right to this notice period.

Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421

The WCAB and WCJ may impose sanctions for bad faith actions or tactics that cause unnecessary delay or are without merit.

The Board reminded parties that frivolous or bad faith tactics may result in sanctions.

From the decision · page 5(Pinkney) (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 789, 806 [59 Cal.Comp.Cases 461], bold added.) Therefore, the Minute Order violated the parties right to due process by failing to notice and then hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether all necessary parties have been named and joined in this consolidated proceeding and by failing to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of WCAB Rule 10382 prior to ordering joinder of any potential party. We therefore grant removal because a violation of due process is an irreparable harm that cannot be remediated by future reconsideration. We note that petitioner contends in its Supplemental Petition that SCIF argues for the first time in this consolidated matter in its Answer to this Petition for Removal that there are additional, necessary parties to be joined and/or that counsel for lien claimant has acted without authority on behalf of these unknown and alleged necessary parties. We remind the parties that Labor Code section 5813 grants the WCJ and the Appeals Board authority to impose sanctions against any party utilizing, “bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (Lab. Code, § 5813(a).) Generally, such actions or tactics include those “that

The Minute Order was issued without an evidentiary hearing, opinion on decision, or minutes of hearing and summary of evidence, violating due process.

From the decision · page 3(Minute Order, Other/Comments.) Lien claimant sought removal because of this additional order. As an initial matter, an adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for a WCJ’s decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Section 5313 requires that together with findings of fact, orders, and/or awards, a WCJ “shall” serve “a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made.” (Lab. Code, § 5313; see Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (Blackledge) (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22.) A 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 [removal] more meaningful.” (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 476, citing Evans v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) The Minute Order was issued without any minute order addendum or opinion on decision identifying the evidentiary and legal grounds for the order, which makes it impossible for the Appeals Board to review the evidentiary or legal justification for the WCJ’s orders. In addition,