ADJ12703817 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration denied; discovery orders upheld.

Defendant petitioned for removal of the WCJ's Findings and Orders issued March 10, 2026, challenging discovery orders; the WCAB treated the petition as one for reconsideration and denied it.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

Defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the discovery orders; the orders were relevant and necessary for establishing market rates for interpreter services; defendant's arguments were deemed frivolous and for delay.

From the decision · page 5III. Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, defendant failed to establish any substantial prejudice or irreparable harm resulting from the WCJ's orders regarding discovery. The sole dispute is the proper rate of payment, and cost petitioner is attempting to obtain information from defendant to establish the market rate. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce documentation to establish its market rate for its translation services and to produce a witness for deposition regarding the market rate for the geographic region.

The facts that decided it

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

The WCJ ordered defendant to produce documentation and a witness for deposition regarding interpreter market rates.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This order was central to the discovery dispute and defendant's petition for removal.

From the decision · page 2Per the Finding and Orders issued on 3/10/26, this WCJ determined that Guard Insurance is to serve NAP interpreting, the explanations of review for all Spanish interpreters paid in the rendering of same or similar services in the same geographic region in this case, that Guard Insurance is to serve NAP interpreting a current copy of the Benefits Printout in this case, that the parties are to develop the record as to what specific non-privileged or non-work product "guidelines" of Guard Insurance are being sought for purposes of determining interpreter market rates, and that Guard Insurance is to make available for deposition the adjuster in this case or other person most knowledge regarding the determination of interpreter market rates.

Defendant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the discovery orders.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of demonstrated harm justified denial of removal petition.

From the decision · page 5III. Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, defendant failed to establish any substantial prejudice or irreparable harm resulting from the WCJ's orders regarding discovery. The sole dispute is the proper rate of payment, and cost petitioner is attempting to obtain information from defendant to establish the market rate. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce documentation to establish its market rate for its translation services and to produce a witness for deposition regarding the market rate for the geographic region.

Defendant's arguments opposing discovery orders were deemed frivolous and solely for delay.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported admonishment and potential sanctions, reinforcing denial of petition.

From the decision · page 6We admonish defendant's non-attorney representative Ted Durden and AM LIEN SOLUTIONS and defendant KT Auto Transport and defendant's insurance company NorGuard Insurance Company, administered by Guard Insurance Companies, that when they raise such arguments claiming that they should not have to provide information that it is clearly relevant and discoverable, their conduct appears to be frivolous and solely for the purposes of delay. In the future, if defendant and/or its representative engages in such conduct, they may be subject to the sanctions discussed above, and defendant's non-attorney representative may be subject to proceedings under section 4907.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10843(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.

Applied to defendant's petition for removal of discovery orders.

From the decision · page 5III. Removal 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 significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10843(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, § 10843(a).) Here, for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, defendant failed to establish any substantial prejudice or irreparable harm resulting from the WCJ's orders regarding discovery. The sole dispute is the proper rate of payment, and cost petitioner is attempting to obtain information from defendant to establish the market rate. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce documentation to establish its market rate for its translation services and to produce a witness for deposition regarding the market rate for the geographic region.

Lab. Code, 5813

Sanctions may be imposed for bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

Defendant's conduct in opposing discovery orders was admonished as potentially sanctionable.

From the decision · page 5Thus, we see no basis upon which to overturn the WCJ's discovery orders in this matter. Defendant contends that the discovery orders to produce documentation and a witness for deposition will mean that cost petitioner will prevail in this matter, and in other cases where defendant disputes the value of this cost petitioner's services. We consider this argument to be without merit and bordering on frivolous because cost petitioner is entitled to this relevant information in order to establish its market rate for its translation services in this geographic region. The Appeals Board is authorized to impose sanctions, costs and attorney's fees under section 5813, against a person who engages in "bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." (Lab. Code, § 5813.) Sanctions under section 5813 are designed to punish litigation abuses and to provide the court with a tool for curbing improper legal tactics and controlling their calendars. (Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 166

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10421(b)

Sanctions authorized for bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

Admonishment of defendant's conduct regarding discovery orders.

From the decision · page 6Cal.App.4th 294, 302.) WCAB Rule 10421, subdivision (b), authorizes sanctions for a party who has committed "[b]ad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay including actions or tactics that result from willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation, that result from a willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, or that are done for an improper motive or are indisputably without merit." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b).)

ADJ12703817 · June 5, 2026

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page