ADJ17142839 · April 28, 2026

The WCJ's order was not a final order as it was a discovery order regarding deposition conduct; reconsideration is not available, but removal is granted due to the WCJ's failure to follow required procedures, denying applicant due process in discovery.

From the decision · page 5In the Report, the WCJ notes that applicant first raised the lack of medical evidence on the day of trial and suggests that the issue should have been raised earlier. However, that is the first time that applicant could have raised the issue. When a WCJ bypasses procedures and sets a matter directly onto the trial calendar without joint agreement of the parties, without completing a mandatory settlement conference, and without completing a pre-trial conference statement, the WCJ cannot then fault a party for raising an issue on the day of trial. The Appeals Board has adopted standardized Rules of Practice and Procedure, in part, to prevent this type of error from occurring. The WCJ's failure to follow the Rules of Practice and Procedure in this case resulted in denying applicant's due process right to discovery, and thus removal is appropriate.

The WCJ set the matter for trial without a mandatory settlement conference or a completed pre-trial conference statement, contrary to required procedure.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This procedural error denied applicant due process in discovery, justifying removal.

From the decision · page 5In the Report, the WCJ notes that applicant first raised the lack of medical evidence on the day of trial and suggests that the issue should have been raised earlier. However, that is the first time that applicant could have raised the issue. When a WCJ bypasses procedures and sets a matter directly onto the trial calendar without joint agreement of the parties, without completing a mandatory settlement conference, and without completing a pre-trial conference statement, the WCJ cannot then fault a party for raising an issue on the day of trial. The Appeals Board has adopted standardized Rules of Practice and Procedure, in part, to prevent this type of error from occurring. The WCJ's failure to follow the Rules of Practice and Procedure in this case resulted in denying applicant's due process right to discovery, and thus removal is appropriate.

Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB; Maranian v. WCAB; Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 462 (En Banc)

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, which determines a substantive right or threshold issue; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.

The WCJ's order denying a protective order was not a final order, so reconsideration was not available.

From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180, 260 Cal. Rptr. 76; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534§ 535 [163 Cal. Rptr. 750, 45 Cal. Comp. Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 39, 45 [43 Cal. Comp. Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 65 Cal. Comp.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); Cortez v. WCAB; Kleemann v. WCAB

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

Removal was granted because the WCJ's procedural errors denied applicant due process in discovery.

From the decision · page 4Kleemann 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. 8, 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).)

The WCJ bypassed required procedures by setting the matter for trial without a mandatory settlement conference or a completed pre-trial conference statement, and then faulted applicant for raising the lack of medical evidence at trial.

From the decision · page 5In the Report, the WCJ notes that applicant first raised the lack of medical evidence on the day of trial and suggests that the issue should have been raised earlier. However, that is the first time that applicant could have raised the issue. When a WCJ bypasses procedures and sets a matter directly onto the trial calendar without joint agreement of the parties, without completing a mandatory settlement conference, and without completing a pre-trial conference statement, the WCJ cannot then fault a party for raising an issue on the day of trial. The Appeals Board has adopted standardized Rules of Practice and Procedure, in part, to prevent this type of error from occurring. The WCJ's failure to follow the Rules of Practice and Procedure in this case resulted in denying applicant's due process right to discovery, and thus removal is appropriate.