ADJ11388750 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ's September 3, 2024 Findings and Order granting stay of lien vacated.

Petition for Reconsideration of WCJ's Findings and Order granting stay of lien was filed and considered by the Appeals Board, which issued a decision after reconsideration.

Read the official decision →

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.

Other disputed issueApplicant prevailed

The Appeals Board found the WCJ lacked authority to issue discovery-related orders after consolidation of liens for discovery under case SAU13697043, making the stay order unenforceable and causing significant prejudice to the lien claimant.

From the decision · page 5Here, the Order of Consolidation for purposes of discovery was issued on August 16, 2024, pursuant to WCAB rule 10396. (8/16/24 Order of Consolidation, case SAU13697043; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396.) We take judicial notice of case number SAU13697043 and of the Order of Consolidation issued in that case. We conclude that upon issuance of the Order of Consolidation, the WCJ in the present matter no longer had authority to issue orders related to discovery in this case, because jurisdiction over discovery issues in this matter lay with the Presiding WCJ in the consolidated proceeding. The September 3, 2024, F&O in this matter is thus unenforceable, until such time as the Order of Consolidation is revoked or the lien is transferred back to the original district office. For these reasons, we conclude that significant prejudice will result if removal is denied.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Order of Consolidation for discovery issued August 16, 2024, consolidated lien claimant's liens including case ADJ11388750 for discovery under case SAU13697043.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This order transferred discovery jurisdiction to the Presiding WCJ in the consolidated proceeding, removing authority from the WCJ in the original case to issue discovery-related orders such as the stay of lien.

From the decision · page 5Here, the Order of Consolidation for purposes of discovery was issued on August 16, 2024, pursuant to WCAB rule 10396. (8/16/24 Order of Consolidation, case SAU13697043; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396.) We take judicial notice of case number SAU13697043 and of the Order of Consolidation issued in that case. We conclude that upon issuance of the Order of Consolidation, the WCJ in the present matter no longer had authority to issue orders related to discovery in this case, because jurisdiction over discovery issues in this matter lay with the Presiding WCJ in the consolidated proceeding. The September 3, 2024, F&O in this matter is thus unenforceable, until such time as the Order of Consolidation is revoked or the lien is transferred back to the original district office. For these reasons, we conclude that significant prejudice will result if removal is denied.

Dr. Bazel invoked Fifth Amendment at deposition, declining to answer questions.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact was the basis for the original stay order but was reconsidered in light of the consolidation order and jurisdictional transfer, leading to vacating the stay.

From the decision · page 2(NIT 6/5/24, case SAU13697043.) A status conference took place on June 18, 2024, and the matter was continued to August 13, 2024. (MOH 6/18/24, case SAU13697043, at p. 9.) On August 16, 2024, an Order of Consolidation issued, which indicated that "the liens of lien claimant Bell Community Medical Group identified as Exhibit A are consolidated for the purposes of discovery." (8/16/24 Order of Consolidation, case SAU13697043.) Case number ADJ11388750 is listed in Exhibit A of that Order and is thus subject to the order of consolidation.2 (Id., at p.3.) Meanwhile, in the instant case, on April 6, 2024, defendant filed a Petition for Stay of the lien, in which it based its request for stay on the allegation that Dr. Bazel (also known as Dr. Bazelyansky, owner of Bell Community Medical Group) invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer questions at his deposition in this matter and in many other matters involving

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Defendant prevailed

Dr. Bazel invoked Fifth Amendment at deposition, declining to answer questions.

From the decision · page 2(NIT 6/5/24, case SAU13697043.) A status conference took place on June 18, 2024, and the matter was continued to August 13, 2024. (MOH 6/18/24, case SAU13697043, at p. 9.) On August 16, 2024, an Order of Consolidation issued, which indicated that "the liens of lien claimant Bell Community Medical Group identified as Exhibit A are consolidated for the purposes of discovery." (8/16/24 Order of Consolidation, case SAU13697043.) Case number ADJ11388750 is listed in Exhibit A of that Order and is thus subject to the order of consolidation.2 (Id., at p.3.) Meanwhile, in the instant case, on April 6, 2024, defendant filed a Petition for Stay of the lien, in which it based its request for stay on the allegation that Dr. Bazel (also known as Dr. Bazelyansky, owner of Bell Community Medical Group) invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer questions at his deposition in this matter and in many other matters involving

Other evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

Order of Consolidation for discovery issued August 16, 2024, transferring discovery jurisdiction to Presiding WCJ in consolidated case SAU13697043.

From the decision · page 5Here, the Order of Consolidation for purposes of discovery was issued on August 16, 2024, pursuant to WCAB rule 10396. (8/16/24 Order of Consolidation, case SAU13697043; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396.) We take judicial notice of case number SAU13697043 and of the Order of Consolidation issued in that case. We conclude that upon issuance of the Order of Consolidation, the WCJ in the present matter no longer had authority to issue orders related to discovery in this case, because jurisdiction over discovery issues in this matter lay with the Presiding WCJ in the consolidated proceeding. The September 3, 2024, F&O in this matter is thus unenforceable, until such time as the Order of Consolidation is revoked or the lien is transferred back to the original district office. For these reasons, we conclude that significant prejudice will result if removal is denied.

ADJ11388750 · December 2, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page