Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5803
The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards and may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor.
The Board rescinded the order changing venue based on this continuing jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 2"The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards
Due process requires that parties be provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before orders affecting their rights are made.
The Board found that defendant was not properly served with notice of intention to change venue, violating due process rights.
From the decision · page 2In his Report, the WCJ acknowledges that defendant was not properly served with the
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10330
WCAB Rule 10330 grants WCJs full power, jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine all issues of fact and law presented and to issue orders necessary to fully adjudicate the case.
The Board emphasized the broad jurisdiction of the WCJ to hear and determine all issues, including venue changes.
From the decision · page 2In any case that has been regularly assigned to a workers' compensation judge, the
workers' compensation judge shall have full power, jurisdiction and authority to
hear and determine all issues of fact and law presented and to issue any interim,
interlocutory and final orders, findings, decisions and awards as may be necessary
to the full adjudication of the case, including the fixing of the amount of the bond
required in Labor Code section 3715. Orders, findings, decisions and awards issued
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10360(a)(1)
WCAB Rule 10360(a)(1) precludes testimony by judicial officers regarding the reasons for or basis of any decision or ruling they have made.
The Board rejected defendant's argument to call the WCJ who issued the original order as a witness, citing this rule.
From the decision · page 3by a workers' compensation judge shall be the orders, findings, decisions and
awards of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board unless reconsideration is
granted.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10330.)
The broad grant of jurisdiction means that a WCJ is empowered to issue orders as
appropriate to ensure an adequate and complete record and to fully adjudicate the case. Thus, we
disagree with defendant's contention that the WCJ's jurisdiction is limited to the issue of the order
dismissing.
Finally, we observe that WCAB Rule 10360(a)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10360(a)(1))
specifically precludes testimony by judicial officers regarding: "The reasons for or basis of any
decision or ruling they have made." Consequently, defendant's assertion that a basis for the case
to remain venued at the San Diego district office is to obtain testimony from the WCJ who issued
the original order is meritless and borders on frivolous. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.)
Accordingly, we rescind the February 7, 2024 order changing venue, and return the matter
to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10421
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10421 prohibits testimony by judicial officers about the reasons for their decisions.
The Board found defendant's assertion to call the WCJ as a witness meritless and bordering on frivolous based on this regulation.
From the decision · page 3by a workers' compensation judge shall be the orders, findings, decisions and
awards of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board unless reconsideration is
granted.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10330.)
The broad grant of jurisdiction means that a WCJ is empowered to issue orders as
appropriate to ensure an adequate and complete record and to fully adjudicate the case. Thus, we
disagree with defendant's contention that the WCJ's jurisdiction is limited to the issue of the order
dismissing.
Finally, we observe that WCAB Rule 10360(a)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10360(a)(1))
specifically precludes testimony by judicial officers regarding: "The reasons for or basis of any
decision or ruling they have made." Consequently, defendant's assertion that a basis for the case
to remain venued at the San Diego district office is to obtain testimony from the WCJ who issued
the original order is meritless and borders on frivolous. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.)
Accordingly, we rescind the February 7, 2024 order changing venue, and return the matter
to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.