Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, which determines a substantive right or threshold issue; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
Applied to determine that the WCJ's order was not a final order and reconsideration was not proper.
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 granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
Applied to determine that removal was warranted due to due process violation and lack of adequate remedy by reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cortez) (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases
155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kleemann) (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).)
Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151; Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572; Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284
Parties have a fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing, including the opportunity to offer evidence and object.
Applied to find that defendant's due process rights were violated by not being allowed to rebut or object before the WCJ's order.
From the decision · page 3Parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process
and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair
hearing is "one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant...." (Id. at p. 158.) As
stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, "the
commission...must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, - in short, it acts as a
court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be
done except after due process of law." (Id. at p. 577.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited
to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer
evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284,
1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584].)
Lab. Code § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473
WCJ must make findings on all facts, base decisions on admitted evidence, and provide reasons for determinations.
Applied to find that the WCJ's order lacked an evidentiary record and was not supported by substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 3Additionally, Labor Code section 53132 requires the WCJ to "make and file findings upon
all facts involved in the controversy and [make and file] an award, order, or decision stating the
determination as to the rights of the parties...[and include] a summary of the evidence received and
relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313.) The WCJ's decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton v.
Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 478 (Appeals Bd. en banc)),
and the decision 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.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) In Hamilton, we held
that the record of proceedings must contain, at a minimum, "the issues submitted for decision, the