ADJ14132796 · October 7, 2026

The petition was granted because the denial of the transcript request was found to be inconsistent with WCAB Rule 10800 and the petitioner showed potential significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

From the decision · page 6Here, the WCJ denied defendant’s request, referring to the Policy and Procedure Manual section 1.135, and stating that defendant’s basis for his request was insufficient to determine whether the request was proper. This particular guidance is inconsistent with the minimal requirements for requesting a transcript pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800. The only requirement is a written request accompanied by a check as a deposit for the transcript, which here defendant provided. In nearly all instances, any person may request a transcript at any time in compliance with WCAB Rule 10800, and they will be entitled to obtain it. Accordingly, we will grant the Petition to issue an order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800 that the proceedings and testimony from the October 11, 2022 trial in this matter be transcribed and promptly filed in EAMS, with simultaneous notice of the filing to all active parties and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Office of the Commissioners.

Defendant's request for transcript was denied by WCJ for insufficient basis under Policy and Procedure Manual §1.135.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This denial was found inconsistent with WCAB Rule 10800, warranting reversal and granting of petition.

From the decision · page 3The WCJ issued the Order denying the transcript request on May 7, 2026. The WCJ stated: IT IS ORDERED THAT the request is denied without prejudice for the following reasons: (1) The explanation of the basis for the request (“it would be helpful”) is insufficient to enable the undersigned judge to determine if the request is proper and consistent with Policy and Procedure Manual §1.135; and (2) The requesting party did not explain why the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence is not sufficient.

Petitioner provided written request and fee for transcript as required by WCAB Rule 10800.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Compliance with the minimal requirements of the rule supported granting the petition.

From the decision · page 6Here, the WCJ denied defendant’s request, referring to the Policy and Procedure Manual section 1.135, and stating that defendant’s basis for his request was insufficient to determine whether the request was proper. This particular guidance is inconsistent with the minimal requirements for requesting a transcript pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800. The only requirement is a written request accompanied by a check as a deposit for the transcript, which here defendant provided. In nearly all instances, any person may request a transcript at any time in compliance with WCAB Rule 10800, and they will be entitled to obtain it. Accordingly, we will grant the Petition to issue an order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800 that the proceedings and testimony from the October 11, 2022 trial in this matter be transcribed and promptly filed in EAMS, with simultaneous notice of the filing to all active parties and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Office of the Commissioners.

Petitioner showed potential significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This justified granting removal despite the interlocutory nature of the order.

From the decision · page 5which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’ ”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders”].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, it is unclear from which order or set of findings defendant seeks redress. Defendant’s primary concern, however, seems to challenge the order denying his request for the transcript of the trial. This is an order that would ordinarily be subject to removal as an interlocutory order. 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.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10800

Testimony at hearings will not be transcribed except upon written request with fee or order by commissioner or judge (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10800).

The petition was granted to order transcription pursuant to this rule.

From the decision · page 6Thus, the statutory framework provided by the Legislature for adjudicating workers’ compensation claims utilizes a summary of the proceedings, rather than a transcript. However, WCAB Rule 10800 provides: Testimony taken at hearings will not be transcribed except upon the written request of a party accompanied by the fee prescribed in the Rules of the Administrative Director, or unless ordered by a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or presiding workers’ compensation judge. Any written request shall be served on all parties.

Lab. Code, § 5909

Petitions for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board (Lab. Code, § 5909).

The decision was issued within the 60-day period to timely act on the petition.

From the decision · page 3Petitions for reconsideration filed on or after July 14, 2026 are subject to section 5909, which states that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)

Removal is granted only if petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)).

The petitioner demonstrated potential significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

From the decision · page 5which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’ ”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders”].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. Here, it is unclear from which order or set of findings defendant seeks redress. Defendant’s primary concern, however, seems to challenge the order denying his request for the transcript of the trial. This is an order that would ordinarily be subject to removal as an interlocutory order. 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.

The Policy and Procedure Manual section 1.135 was found inconsistent with WCAB Rule 10800 regarding transcript requests.

From the decision · page 6Here, the WCJ denied defendant’s request, referring to the Policy and Procedure Manual section 1.135, and stating that defendant’s basis for his request was insufficient to determine whether the request was proper. This particular guidance is inconsistent with the minimal requirements for requesting a transcript pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800. The only requirement is a written request accompanied by a check as a deposit for the transcript, which here defendant provided. In nearly all instances, any person may request a transcript at any time in compliance with WCAB Rule 10800, and they will be entitled to obtain it. Accordingly, we will grant the Petition to issue an order pursuant to WCAB Rule 10800 that the proceedings and testimony from the October 11, 2022 trial in this matter be transcribed and promptly filed in EAMS, with simultaneous notice of the filing to all active parties and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Office of the Commissioners.