Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162
Due process requires following the spirit of Evidence Code section 776 to avoid depriving any party of the right to cross-examination.
The Board referenced this case to emphasize due process in cross-examination rights.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code section 5908 states that the appeals board "shall not be bound by the common
law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but may make inquiry in the manner, through
oral testimony and records, which is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties
and carry out justly the spirit and provisions of this division." The right to present evidence
implicates the right to due process. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d
162, 175 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 102]; Pence v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 48, 51
[30 Cal.Comp.Cases 207, 209].)
Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal. Comp. Cases 830
The workers' compensation system is intended to be simple and nontechnical, disfavoring formalistic procedural rules that defeat employee benefits.
The Board cited this en banc opinion to support a nontechnical approach to procedural rules.
From the decision · page 2(Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal. Comp. Cases 830, 838, (Appeals Board en banc).)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found no error in the WCJ's decision, denying removal.
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, 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).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the
merits of petitioner's arguments, we cannot find error in the current record, and thus we are not
persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that
reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision
adverse to petitioner.
Labor Code section 5908
The Appeals Board is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence but must ensure due process rights are upheld, including the right to cross-examination.
The Board considered due process principles in evaluating the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code section 5908 states that the appeals board "shall not be bound by the common
law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but may make inquiry in the manner, through
oral testimony and records, which is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties
and carry out justly the spirit and provisions of this division." The right to present evidence
implicates the right to due process. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d
162, 175 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 102]; Pence v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 48, 51
[30 Cal.Comp.Cases 207, 209].)