What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted; WCJ's May 22, 2023 order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision
Petition for Removal of WCJ's May 22, 2023 order denying Petition to Compel Non-Medical Discovery
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 WCJ's May 22, 2023 order denying the Petition to Compel Non-Medical Discovery did not state a basis for the denial, depriving the petitioner of due process and a meaningful right of appeal, warranting removal and rescission of the order.
From the decision · page 2Cost Petitioner avers the WCJ's May 22, 2023 Order is a due process violation because it does not state a basis for the decision, and thus denies Cost Petitioner the "ability to intelligently appeal, and present argument or evidence to the contrary." (Petition, at p. 3:11.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ's May 22, 2023 order denying Petition to Compel Non-Medical Discovery did not state any basis for denial.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of rationale deprived petitioner of due process and a meaningful right of appeal, warranting removal and rescission of the order.
From the decision · page 2Cost Petitioner avers the WCJ's May 22, 2023 Order is a due process violation because it does not state a basis for the decision, and thus denies Cost Petitioner the "ability to intelligently appeal, and present argument or evidence to the contrary." (Petition, at p. 3:11.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d), 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10629, 10787
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence and include an adequate and complete record to understand the basis for the decision.
The WCJ's order lacked rationale and record, depriving petitioner of meaningful appeal and the Board of basis to review the decision.
From the decision · page 2The WCJ's Report asserts that "Petitioners' contention that a judge must provide [a] rationale in every single decision is simply without merit." (Report, at p. 4.) However, we observe that decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) "It is the responsibility of the parties and
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 and reconsideration is inadequate.
Petitioner showed due process violation and lack of basis for denial, justifying removal.
From the decision · page 1Removal 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); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 599, fn. 5;
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's May 22, 2023 order did not state basis for denial of discovery petition
From the decision · page 2Cost Petitioner avers the WCJ's May 22, 2023 Order is a due process violation because it does not state a basis for the decision, and thus denies Cost Petitioner the "ability to intelligently appeal, and present argument or evidence to the contrary." (Petition, at p. 3:11.)
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.