ADJ15017749 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ's F&A affirmed except amended to allow defendant credit for payments made after the cost petition and before trial; sanctions deferred.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's June 30, 2025 Findings, Award and Orders granting payment for three medical-legal reports; the WCAB granted reconsideration, affirmed the F&A with amendment for credit for payments made after the cost petition and before trial, and deferred sanctions.

Read the official decision →

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.

Jurisdiction / venueApplicant prevailed

Defendant failed to explain its failure to file exhibits as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and did not provide an affidavit of fault; WCJ did not abuse discretion in denying relief.

From the decision · page 5Although a lack of prejudice may be a relevant factor in determining the terms under which relief may be granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), it does not itself indicate entitlement to relief. In the absence of any explanation for defendant's failure to file its exhibits, we cannot find fault with the WCJ's decision not grant relief. Furthermore, we note that the WCJ was apparently willing to grant relief subject to the payment of reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs, but that defendant's hearing representative appears to have rejected that offer, electing instead to proceed to trial without exhibits. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Defendant made payments to cost petitioner after the cost petition and before trial, and cost petitioner's representative was aware of these payments.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Board amended award to allow defendant credit for these payments to prevent unjust enrichment.

From the decision · page 7Although we disregarded the exhibits attached to the Petition in support of these contentions because they are not part of the adjudication record, we will accept the representations in the Petition for Reconsideration itself as an offer of proof that these payments were made. Moreover, we note that the Answer does not dispute these representations or otherwise contest that cost petitioner did in fact receive and cash these checks. Accordingly, it appears there is no reason to question that these payments were in fact made prior to the submission of the issue at trial, or that cost petitioner's hearing representative was actually aware of them at the time of trial.

Defendant failed to file exhibits in EAMS and did not provide an affidavit of fault or explanation for the failure.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Board found no abuse of discretion in WCJ's refusal to admit defendant's evidence or grant relief under CCP § 473(b).

From the decision · page 5Although a lack of prejudice may be a relevant factor in determining the terms under which relief may be granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), it does not itself indicate entitlement to relief. In the absence of any explanation for defendant's failure to file its exhibits, we cannot find fault with the WCJ's decision not grant relief. Furthermore, we note that the WCJ was apparently willing to grant relief subject to the payment of reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs, but that defendant's hearing representative appears to have rejected that offer, electing instead to proceed to trial without exhibits. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code § 5704

Labor Code section 5704 allows evidence added to the record otherwise than during the course of an open hearing, not applicable to trial setting.

Defendant not entitled to introduce evidence at trial without prior filing.

From the decision · page 6open hearing," and therefore has no application to a trial setting. (Lab. Code, § 5704.) We therefore affirm the WCJ's decision to decide the matter based on cost petitioner's exhibits alone.

Labor Code § 5813; Torres (2012 en banc) 77 Cal. Comp. Cases 1113

Sanctions may be imposed for frivolous litigation conduct, including proceeding to trial on issues with no evidentiary support.

Sanctions issue deferred to WCJ for further hearing.

From the decision · page 6Because the WCJ deferred any imposition of sanctions, this issue is, properly speaking, premature, and should be addressed by the WCJ in the first instance after a properly noticed hearing. We observe, however, that a party proceeding to trial on an issue that it knows that it cannot possibly prevail on given the state of the evidence can validly be found to have engaged in frivolous litigation and sanctionable behavior, even if the burden of proof nominally lies with the other party. We leave the question of whether such behavior occurred here to the sound discretion

Labor Code § 5909(a)

A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

Board must act within 60 days of transmission; decision was timely issued.

From the decision · page 3Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(c)

Documents not part of the adjudication file may not be attached to a petition for reconsideration unless newly discovered evidence; attaching such documents may subject party to sanctions.

Board admonished defendant for attaching non-record documents to petition.

From the decision · page 4Three exhibits were attached to the Petition for Reconsideration. Defendant's hearing representatives are admonished that documents that are not part of the adjudication file may not be attached to a petition for reconsideration unless a ground for the petition is newly discovered evidence, which is not the case here. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(c); see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10803 [record of proceedings].) Copies of documents that have already been made part of the adjudication file may not be attached (id.) and doing so may subject the offending party to sanctions. (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) We trust that defendant's hearing representatives will take more care in future to avoid violation of these rules.

Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b)

Relief from judgment for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect requires an affidavit of fault and explanation; lack of prejudice alone does not entitle party to relief.

Defendant did not provide affidavit or explanation; relief denied.

From the decision · page 5Initially, we note that although defendant seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), defendant's hearing representative makes no attempt to actually explain how its failure to upload exhibits into EAMS was the product of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, nor does the Petition include an affidavit of fault. Instead, the Petition focuses on an alleged lack of prejudice to cost petitioner, given that defendant had listed the exhibits in question on the Pre-trial Conference Statement. (Id. at p. 7.)

ADJ15017749 · September 25, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page