What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied.
Petition for removal of the WCJ's Order limiting subpoenas duces tecum to musculoskeletal medical records.
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 petition for removal was denied because the defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and other discovery avenues were available.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the Order issued on April 30, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that defendant's subpoenas duces tecum served upon Kaiser/PMG, KFH/SCPMG, John Muir Medical Center and Brentwood Health Center be limited to medical records pertaining to applicant's musculoskeletal system.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Order limited subpoenas to musculoskeletal medical records only.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This limitation was the subject of the petition for removal and the basis for defendant's claim of prejudice.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the Order issued on April 30, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that defendant's subpoenas duces tecum served upon Kaiser/PMG, KFH/SCPMG, John Muir Medical Center and Brentwood Health Center be limited to medical records pertaining to applicant's musculoskeletal system.
Defendant's agent was turned away by Kaiser's records custodian due to the limitation on subpoenas.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Defendant argued this as significant prejudice but the Board found other discovery avenues available.
From the decision · page 2copy the records that it could not comply because of the limitation. (This is found in Exh. B to the petition, pg. 21 overall.)... Defendant here points out that its agent in this matter was essentially turned away by Kaiser's records custodian, and contends, therefore, that the limiting language must be stricken, in favor of unfettered access to all medical records.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and requires showing significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
The petition for removal was denied because the defendant did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.
Labor Code 5708
Labor Code section 5708 allows broad discovery to ascertain substantial rights of the parties.
The Order limiting discovery to musculoskeletal records was within the scope of Labor Code section 5708.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code section 5708 authorizes the WCJ to "make inquiry in the manner, through oral
Code of Civil Procedure 198
Code of Civil Procedure section 198 allows notice to produce medical files in discovery.
Defendant may give notice to applicant to produce complete medical files as an alternative discovery method.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant's agent was turned away by Kaiser's records custodian due to the limitation on subpoenas.
From the decision · page 2copy the records that it could not comply because of the limitation. (This is found in Exh. B to the petition, pg. 21 overall.)... Defendant here points out that its agent in this matter was essentially turned away by Kaiser's records custodian, and contends, therefore, that the limiting language must be stricken, in favor of unfettered access to all medical records.
Applicant suggested alternatives such as appointment of a special master to review records to protect privacy rights.
From the decision · page 2Applicant cites contrary practicalities, suggesting alternatives including the employment of a special master to review and cull the records or a hearing that neither party has sought.... [T]he appointment of a neutral third party might well solve the problem.... There may be several possible solutions to the current dilemma that would allow defendant to conduct discovery reasonably tailored to maintain this employee's legitimate privacy rights. Applicant raises two such solutions; an order specifically enforcing the modified terms of the subpoena. (Report, pp. 1-3.)
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.