The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Other evidencefavours Defendant prevailed
WCJ lacked jurisdiction over Southeast, Markel, State National, and Packard at the time of the February 18, 2026 F&O, rendering sanctions against them void.
From the decision · page 13Lastly, we note that the WCJ dismissed Southeast, Markel, State National, and Packard on
December 10, 2025. Given their dismissal, the WCJ had no jurisdiction over them at the time of
the February 18, 2026 F&O. As such, any sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs levied against said
entities through the said F&O are rendered void.
Other evidencefavours Defendant prevailed
WCJ failed to provide proper notice of in-person hearings as required by WCAB Rule 10750, invalidating the Notice of Intention to impose sanctions based on failure to appear in person.
From the decision · page 11Moreover, WCAB Rule 10750 requires that a separate notice of hearing be served. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10750.) Here, despite the WCJ's belief that she provided notice to the parties
that appearances at the hearings were to be in person, the official EAMS notices from the WCAB
did not state that appearances were in person. In order to override or contradict the official EAMS
notice, the WCJ must serve, or cause to be served, a notice of hearing that clearly designates the
hearing as in person and clearly identifies the name of the person who is to appear. We do not wish
to imply that parties should not follow all orders by a WCJ or otherwise obviate parties' obligation
to comply with court orders, nevertheless, due process requires that a notice of the hearing clearly
state that it be in person and/or that a particular person must appear. Thus, to the extent that a basis
for the NIT was a failure to appear in person, the NIT is invalid.
Other evidencefavours Defendant prevailed
CBE Law Group's filing of a letter rather than a formal petition for dismissal did not constitute sanctionable behavior.
From the decision · page 12Taking into consideration Chicago Dogs, CBE Law Group's filing of a letter rather than a
formal petition for dismissal does not rise to the level of sanctionable behavior. We again note that
the WCJ has the authority to order corrections to the record, especially here where the WCJ was
well aware that Southeast, Markel, State National, and Packard were not properly parties and had
never been joined, and it was applicant's error in identifying Markel initially which triggered the
confusion.