What the panel ordered
WCJ Minute Order of July 22, 2021 rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petition for removal of WCJ Minute Order denying expedited hearing granted by WCAB panel; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold October 4, 2021.
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 WCAB panel found that the WCJ's denial of an expedited hearing based on the absence of an admitted body part was invalid under Labor Code section 5502, and that the matter should be returned to the trial level for further proceedings with a complete evidentiary record.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal of the Minute Order (Order) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 22, 2021. By the Order, the WCJ took the matter off calendar on the basis that expedited hearings are limited to claims with one or more accepted body parts.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ took the expedited hearing off calendar based on a rule limiting expedited hearings to claims with admitted body parts, despite Labor Code section 5502 not requiring such limitation.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This was the basis for the WCJ's order which was found invalid by the WCAB panel.
From the decision · page 2Today's expedited hearing is ordered OTOC, over applicant's objection, based on California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10782(a) and (b), and WCAB Policy and Procedure Manual Index No. 1.20, which limit expedited hearings to claims with one or more admitted body parts, notwithstanding the lack of such an express requirement under Labor Code section 5502(b).
No evidentiary record was created at the expedited hearing, preventing review of substantial evidence support for the WCJ's order.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without a record, the WCAB could not uphold the WCJ's order.
From the decision · page 3The Order in this matter was issued without creation of an evidentiary record. We are unable to address whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the absence of a record.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc)
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence in the record and supported by substantial evidence.
The WCAB found the WCJ's order unsupported due to lack of evidentiary record.
From the decision · page 2Decisions 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).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10552, now 10782 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020)
WCAB Rule 10782 and the WCAB Policy and Procedural Manual limit expedited hearings to claims with admitted body parts, but this limitation conflicts with Labor Code section 5502.
The WCAB found these rules invalid to the extent they prohibit expedited hearings under Labor Code section 5502.
From the decision · page 1We received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we grant removal and issue a decision finding that WCAB Rule 10782 and the WCAB Policy and Procedural Manual are invalid to the extent they prohibit an expedited hearing in conflict with section 5502. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10552, now § 10782 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidentiary record was created at the expedited hearing, preventing review of substantial evidence support for the WCJ's order.
From the decision · page 3The Order in this matter was issued without creation of an evidentiary record. We are unable to address whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the absence of a record.
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.