Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if not granted, and reconsideration is inadequate.
Applied to determine whether to grant removal of WCJ's Order limiting SDT.
From the decision · page 2On August 21, 2024 applicant filed a petition to quash said Subpoenas.
On October 29, 2024, the WCJ issued an Order limiting the SDTs to medical records solely
related to applicant's upper extremities. It is from this Order defendant seeks removal.
Removal 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
substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit.
Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151
Parties have a fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under California and U.S. Constitutions.
Applied to emphasize the necessity of due process in discovery and hearing procedures.
From the decision · page 28, § 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).) Parties to a workers' compensation
proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California
and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th
151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is "one of `the rudiments of fair play'
assured to every litigant...." (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in
Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473
Decisions must be based on admitted evidence and the record must be complete and clearly referenced in the WCJ's opinion on decision.
Applied to require a clear and complete evidentiary basis for the WCJ's Order limiting SDT.
From the decision · page 2572, "the commission...must find facts and declare
and enforce rights and liabilities, - in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of
the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law." (Id.
at p. 577.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine
witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584].)
Further, decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the
record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476
(Appeals Board en banc).) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis
for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) "It is the
responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is
submitted for decision on the record. At a minimum, the record must contain, in properly organized
form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted
evidence." (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 475.) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth