ADJ17424976 — California WCAB decision

ADJ17424976 · October 21, 2024

Petition for Reconsideration granted; original Findings and Order of July 26, 2024 rescinded and substituted with new Findings and Order requiring applicant to appear in person for deposition in California with costs paid by defendant; all other issues deferred

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Riverside

What the panel ordered

Applicant seeks reconsideration of the July 26, 2024 Findings and Order regarding in-person deposition requirement; WCJ recommended denial; WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded original F&O substituting a new F&O clarifying findings

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 / venueDefendant prevailedpsyche

Applicant is a party who invoked California WCAB jurisdiction by filing a claim in California where injury occurred; defendant offered to pay all costs and schedule deposition with QME evaluation; in-person testimony is important for psyche claims; thus, in-person deposition in California is reasonable and required.

From the decision · page 8In the current case, applicant filed the claim in California as that is where the claimed injury occurred. Further, as noted by the WCJ, defendant "offered to schedule the deposition at the time when applicant is traveling to California to be examined by the QME." As such, applicant would already be in California for a QME evaluation during the time of the deposition. Additionally, given the nature of psyche claims, the parties should understand that credibility and witness testimony are crucial to determining the outcome of the relevant issues in this case and as such, should recognize that in person testimony may be more significant to the discovery process. We therefore agree with the WCJ that applicant must appear in person in California for her deposition.

The rules the panel named

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

Code of Civil Procedure sections 1989, 2025.250, 2025.260

Governs deposition location and exceptions for out-of-state witnesses; court may order deposition at more distant place considering interests of justice.

From the decision · page 7Notwithstanding Moran and sections 5708 and 5709, applicant cites to sections 1989 and 2025.250 of the Code of Civil Procedure and relies upon the case of Toyota Motor Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Stewart) (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1110. Section 1989 indicates that a witness is not obliged to attend a deposition in California unless they are a resident at the time of service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1989.) In Stewart, the court applied section 1989 to a products liability case wherein plaintiffs sought to depose in California persons most knowledgeable (PMK) about an alleged car defect which caused the plaintiffs' injuries. The witnesses all resided in Japan. The court ultimately held that based upon relevant case law, statutes, and legislative history, the trial court lacked the power to compel a foreign witness to attend a deposition in California.

Labor Code sections 5708, 5709, 5710

Provides flexibility and relaxed rules for discovery in workers' compensation proceedings.

From the decision · page 6III. Turning to the merits of the Petition, we must note that in furtherance of the goal of resolving claims "expeditiously, inexpensively, and without encumbrance of any character," the Legislature has created a "complete system of workers' compensation" to compensate workers for industrial injury or disability irrespective of the fault of any party. (Cal. Const. Art. XIV, § 4.) This "complete system" includes procedures for, inter alia, subpoenas for depositions, including the issuance of notices to appear. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10640 et seq.) Section 5710(a) provides guidance as to depositions, and it states, in relevant part, that any party to a workers compensation proceeding may depose a witness "... in the manner prescribed by law for like depositions in civil actions in the superior courts of this state under Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure." (Lab. Code, § 5710(a).) We note that although section 5710(a) appears to incorporate the Civil Discovery Act, it does so permissively, and the Appeals Board is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to parameters

Toyota Motor Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Stewart) (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107

Applicant cited this case to argue against in-person deposition in California due to non-residency; court distinguished applicant as party invoking jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 7Notwithstanding Moran and sections 5708 and 5709, applicant cites to sections 1989 and 2025.250 of the Code of Civil Procedure and relies upon the case of Toyota Motor Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Stewart) (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1110. Section 1989 indicates that a witness is not obliged to attend a deposition in California unless they are a resident at the time of service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1989.) In Stewart, the court applied section 1989 to a products liability case wherein plaintiffs sought to depose in California persons most knowledgeable (PMK) about an alleged car defect which caused the plaintiffs' injuries. The witnesses all resided in Japan. The court ultimately held that based upon relevant case law, statutes, and legislative history, the trial court lacked the power to compel a foreign witness to attend a deposition in California.

ADJ17424976 · October 21, 2024

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