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 Appeals Board found that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, which were indisputably without merit, justifying sanctions and costs.
From the decision · page 1We previously granted removal in these matters on our own motion to provide an opportunity to study and address the issues of sanctions and costs under Labor Code section 58131. Having completed our review, we now issue an Order of Consolidation and a Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions and Costs (En Banc).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed petitions for reconsideration on or near trial dates after being denied continuances, then failed to appear at trial.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This conduct was found to be willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, justifying sanctions and costs.
From the decision · page 11It appears that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett are each aware that the effect of filing a petition for reconsideration is to halt further proceedings at the trial level. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) It appears that the sole purpose for seeking reconsideration was to delay a trial date after being denied a continuance. The sheer volume of petitions being filed by Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett with similar fact patterns appears to evidence an intentional course of conduct, which further warrants consolidation of these proceedings. Thus, we issue an order consolidating the eight (8) cases discussed above so that we may address the issues of sanctions and reasonable expenses, including costs and attorney's fees.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10748; Labor Code section 5813; WCAB Rule 10421
Petitions for reconsideration may only be taken from final orders; orders affecting trial setting are not final orders subject to reconsideration; filing improper petitions for reconsideration is sanctionable.
The Appeals Board applied these standards to find that the petitions for reconsideration filed by Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett were improper and sanctionable.
From the decision · page 14(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10748.) A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision,
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Multiple petitions for reconsideration filed on or near trial dates to delay proceedings; failure to appear at trial; prior notice that reconsideration is improper for non-final orders.
From the decision · page 11It appears that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett are each aware that the effect of filing a petition for reconsideration is to halt further proceedings at the trial level. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) It appears that the sole purpose for seeking reconsideration was to delay a trial date after being denied a continuance. The sheer volume of petitions being filed by Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett with similar fact patterns appears to evidence an intentional course of conduct, which further warrants consolidation of these proceedings. Thus, we issue an order consolidating the eight (8) cases discussed above so that we may address the issues of sanctions and reasonable expenses, including costs and attorney's fees.
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.