ADJ7445107 · October 13, 2025

The en banc Appeals Board held that defendants must comply with WCAB Rule 10390 and the binding en banc decisions in Coldiron I and II requiring disclosure of entities liable for payment and insurance policies impacting liability, and that the WCJ's prior conclusion that Rule 10390 superseded Coldiron was incorrect.

From the decision · page 1(En Banc) We previously granted reconsideration in order to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (En Banc).1 To secure uniformity of decisions in the future, the Chair of the Appeals Board, upon a unanimous vote of its members, assigned this case to the Appeals Board as a whole for an en banc decision.2 (Lab. Code, § 115.) Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 19, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that in response to applicant's discovery request, defendant was only required to comply with WCAB Rule 10390 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10390) and disclose the name of the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier. Applicant contends that the WCJ's conclusion that WCAB Rule 10390 only requires that a defendant disclose the name of its insurance carrier was too narrow, and that the en banc

Defendant failed to comply with discovery request to disclose detailed insurance carrier and policy information relevant to payment and enforcement of medical treatment orders.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This failure justified rescinding the WCJ's prior Findings of Fact and Order and returning the matter for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 16Having established that Coldiron is binding authority, and having clarified that its holding is applicable to the facts of this case, even when no third-party administrator is involved, we turn to the question of whether defendant complied with the requirements of Coldiron. It appears that it did not. Applicant's attorney made a valid discovery request and demonstrated that detailed information about the liable entities and applicable insurance policies was relevant to payment of compensation to applicant and enforcing the February 11, 2020 order that defendant pay for medical treatment in the form of home health care services.

Evaluated applicant for appropriate level of home health care services and issued reports recommending 10 hours of home care per day, seven days per week.

From the decision · page 3On November 5, 2018, the parties appeared for an expedited hearing. They entered into a Stipulation, approved by a WCJ, that applicant would be medically evaluated by agreed medical evaluator (AME) Alexander Angerman, M.D., to determine the appropriate level of home health care services required and to issue a medical report, and that defendant would arrange for home health care services for applicant of at least eight hours per week while the assessment process was pending.

Coldiron v. Compuware Corp. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 289 (Appeals Board en banc)

Binding en banc decisions in Coldiron I and II require disclosure of entities liable for payment and insurance policies impacting liability.

The Appeals Board held that these decisions remain binding and must be complied with regardless of WCAB Rule 10390.

From the decision · page 7WCJs, and the binding en banc decisions in Coldiron I and Coldiron II require disclosure of any entities liable for payment and any insurance policies that impact liability for payment.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10390

WCAB Rule 10390 requires parties, their representatives, and insurance companies to be fully identified.

The Appeals Board held that defendants must comply with this rule and the Coldiron decisions.

From the decision · page 21. All en banc decisions are binding on panels of the Appeals Board and WCJs, and the binding en banc decisions in Coldiron I and Coldiron II require disclosure of any entities liable for payment and any insurance policies that impact liability for payment.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10325

En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers' compensation administrative judges.

The Appeals Board emphasized the binding nature of en banc decisions and stare decisis.

From the decision · page 11 Commissioner Sweeney, who was on the panel that issued the order granting reconsideration, is no longer a member of the Appeals Board. Another panel member has been assigned in her place. 2 En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers' compensation administrative judges. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10325; City of Long Beach v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 316, fn. 5 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 109]; Gee v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1424, fn. 6 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 236].) This en banc decision is also adopted as a precedent decision pursuant to Government Code section 11425.60(b).

Lab. Code, 5708; Lab. Code, 5709

Labor Code sections 5708 and 5709 provide that the WCJ and Appeals Board have broad discretion in evidentiary matters and may admit evidence not admissible under common law rules.

The Appeals Board noted that these statutes support liberal pre-trial discovery and informality in proceedings.

From the decision · page 15Our holding herein is consistent with the public policy favoring liberal pre-trial discovery that may reasonably lead to relevant and admissible evidence applicable in workers' compensation cases. (Allison v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 654, 663 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].)12 We emphasize that in workers' compensation proceedings, the Labor Code makes explicit that the WCJ and the Appeals Board have greater discretion with respect to evidentiary matters than courts in civil proceedings, and not narrower discretion as defendant appears to believe. Section 5708 mandates that we are not "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." (Lab. Code, § 5708, emphasis added.) Section 5709 specifically allows informality in our proceedings and ensures that "admission into the record, and use as proof of any fact in dispute, of any evidence not admissible under the common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure" will not invalidate an order, decision or award. (Lab. Code, § 5709.)13

Applicant's attorney made a valid discovery request and demonstrated relevance of detailed insurance information to payment and enforcement of medical treatment orders.

From the decision · page 16Having established that Coldiron is binding authority, and having clarified that its holding is applicable to the facts of this case, even when no third-party administrator is involved, we turn to the question of whether defendant complied with the requirements of Coldiron. It appears that it did not. Applicant's attorney made a valid discovery request and demonstrated that detailed information about the liable entities and applicable insurance policies was relevant to payment of compensation to applicant and enforcing the February 11, 2020 order that defendant pay for medical treatment in the form of home health care services.