What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted, WCJ's order rescinded, and matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Defendant sought removal of the WCJ's order granting EDD's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum, which was filed and served on June 25, 2024.
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.
Removal granted because the WCJ issued the order without a hearing or notice of intent, violating due process and lacking evidentiary support, thus prejudicing defendant's rights.
From the decision · page 3Accordingly, due process requires that we grant defendant's Petition for Removal, rescind the Order filed on June 25, 2024, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ issued the order granting the Motion to Quash without a hearing or notice of intent.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This violated due process and deprived defendant of a fair opportunity to contest the motion, justifying removal.
From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ summarily issued the Order granting the Motion to Quash without issuing a notice of intent and without conducting a hearing on the motion. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.) No record was created to support the Order granting the Motion to Quash, and without an ability to review the evidentiary record and the stipulations and issues, we cannot complete a meaningful review of the Petition.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
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 an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
The Appeals Board granted removal because the WCJ's order was issued without a hearing or notice, causing prejudice and irreparable harm to defendant.
From the decision · page 2Workers' 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); 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; Lab. Code, 5313
Due process requires a fair hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard.
The WCJ's order violated due process by granting the motion without a hearing or notice, thus removal was warranted.
From the decision · page 2All parties 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.)
Lab. Code, 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473; Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753
A WCJ must make findings on all facts and state reasons for decisions based on admitted evidence supported by substantial evidence.
The WCJ failed to comply with these requirements by issuing the order without evidentiary record or findings, justifying removal.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also, Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No hearing was held and no evidence was admitted on the record for the Motion to Quash.
From the decision · page 2(Order, filed June 25, 2024.) There was no hearing held to address the Motion to Quash or Order, and thus no evidence
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.