Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Evid. Code, 996(a), 1016(a)
Patient-litigant exception to physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges applies only if the patient has tendered the condition in issue.
Applicant did not tender psychiatric condition as an issue, so privileges were not waived.
From the decision · page 5Additionally, a patient enjoys a privilege to refuse to disclose any "confidential
communication" between themself and a treating physician or psychotherapist pursuant to
Evidence Code sections 990 et seq. (physician-patient privilege) and 1010 et seq. (psychotherapist-
patient privilege).2 However, Evidence Code sections 996 and 1016 provide an exception to the
general physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges, the "patient-litigant" exception,
Lab. Code, 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The case was transmitted on July 11, 2025, and the decision was issued on September 5, 2025, within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 2Former 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, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.
Defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.
From the decision · page 4Removal 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
significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
Cal. Const. art. I, 1
California constitutional right to privacy extends to medical records.
Applicant's right to privacy regarding psychiatric history was upheld as no psychiatric injury was pled.
From the decision · page 5Notwithstanding the filing of a claim for workers' compensation benefits, applicants
maintain a right to privacy. The California Constitution provides that, "All people are by nature
free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life
and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety,
happiness, and privacy." (Cal. Const. art. I, § 1.) California's constitutional right to privacy
"extends to...medical records." (E.g., John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198; see
also, e.g., Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 41.)