ADJ19072601 · May 12, 2025

The WCJ's Order limiting the scope of medical records was not supported by a clear basis or evidence, failing to ensure a complete record and due process, thus removal was warranted to allow further proceedings.

From the decision · page 3Here, it appears that the WCJ based his decision on a determination that an Order limiting the scope of the requested medical records was necessary, based upon "good cause", but failed to provide a basis for such decision, nor the evidence upon which he relied.

WCJ's Order limiting SDT lacked a clear basis and evidentiary support.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This failure prevented determination of good cause for limiting discovery, necessitating removal and further proceedings.

From the decision · page 3Here, it appears that the WCJ based his decision on a determination that an Order limiting the scope of the requested medical records was necessary, based upon "good cause", but failed to provide a basis for such decision, nor the evidence upon which he relied.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if not granted, and reconsideration is inadequate.

Applied to determine whether to grant removal of WCJ's Order limiting SDT.

From the decision · page 2On August 21, 2024 applicant filed a petition to quash said Subpoenas. On October 29, 2024, the WCJ issued an Order limiting the SDTs to medical records solely related to applicant's upper extremities. It is from this Order defendant seeks removal. 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 substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.

Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151

Parties have a fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under California and U.S. Constitutions.

Applied to emphasize the necessity of due process in discovery and hearing procedures.

From the decision · page 28, § 10955(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, § 10955(a).) 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.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal.

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

Decisions must be based on admitted evidence and the record must be complete and clearly referenced in the WCJ's opinion on decision.

Applied to require a clear and complete evidentiary basis for the WCJ's Order limiting SDT.

From the decision · page 2572, "the commission...must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, - in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law." (Id. at p. 577.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584].) Further, decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) "It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record. At a minimum, the record must contain, in properly organized form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence." (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 475.) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth

WCJ failed to provide basis or evidence for limiting medical records discovery

From the decision · page 3Here, it appears that the WCJ based his decision on a determination that an Order limiting the scope of the requested medical records was necessary, based upon "good cause", but failed to provide a basis for such decision, nor the evidence upon which he relied.