What the panel ordered
Petition for removal denied by the Appeals Board.
Lien claimant filed a petition for removal from a minute order excusing a witness from trial issued by the WCJ, which was recommended to be denied by the WCJ and is now reviewed by the Appeals Board.
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.
The Appeals Board found no error in the WCJ's decision to excuse the witness and that the lien claimant had conducted substantial cross-examination, thus no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown to justify removal.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant has filed a petition for removal from a minute order excusing a witness from trial issued on September 10, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant conducted substantial cross-examination of the witness as documented in the hearing minutes.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact showed that the lien claimant's due process rights were not violated, undermining the basis for removal.
From the decision · page 3Here, lien claimant argues that the WCJ should not have dismissed a witness because lien claimant wanted to cross examine the witness. However, lien claimant appears to be significantly misrepresenting the facts of this case. Lien claimant did conduct a substantial cross examination of the witness as documented in the minutes. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, September 10, 2025, p. 13, line 22 through p. 16, line 7.) The cross examination summarized in the minutes is not limited simply to an email as lien claimant suggests. The summary lasts nearly three pages. Lien claimant David Silver, M.D., and lien claimant's representative, Dan Escamilla and Legal Service Bureau is admonished not to misrepresent or omit material facts in the future.
Lien claimant did not call any witnesses during its case in chief, inviting the error it now complains of.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported the denial of removal because the lien claimant's argument was undermined by its own procedural choices.
From the decision · page 3Next, lien claimants petition fails to acknowledge that it called no witnesses at all during its case in chief. To the extent that lien claimant argues that this witness was required to present critical evidence, lien claimant appears to have invited this error by not calling the witness during its case in chief.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Lien claimant David Silver, M.D., was admonished for misrepresenting facts regarding cross-examination of a witness.
From the decision · page 3Here, lien claimant argues that the WCJ should not have dismissed a witness because lien claimant wanted to cross examine the witness. However, lien claimant appears to be significantly misrepresenting the facts of this case. Lien claimant did conduct a substantial cross examination of the witness as documented in the minutes. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, September 10, 2025, p. 13, line 22 through p. 16, line 7.) The cross examination summarized in the minutes is not limited simply to an email as lien claimant suggests. The summary lasts nearly three pages. Lien claimant David Silver, M.D., and lien claimant's representative, Dan Escamilla and Legal Service Bureau is admonished not to misrepresent or omit material facts in the future.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162
Due process requires following the spirit of Evidence Code section 776 to avoid depriving any party of the right to cross-examination.
The Board referenced this case to emphasize due process in cross-examination rights.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code section 5908 states that the appeals board "shall not be bound by the common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but may make inquiry in the manner, through oral testimony and records, which is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and carry out justly the spirit and provisions of this division." The right to present evidence implicates the right to due process. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 175 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 102]; Pence v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 48, 51 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 207, 209].)
Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal. Comp. Cases 830
The workers' compensation system is intended to be simple and nontechnical, disfavoring formalistic procedural rules that defeat employee benefits.
The Board cited this en banc opinion to support a nontechnical approach to procedural rules.
From the decision · page 2(Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal. Comp. Cases 830, 838, (Appeals Board en banc).)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The Appeals Board applied this standard and found no error in the WCJ's decision, denying removal.
From the decision · page 2Removal 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. 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).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we cannot find error in the current record, and thus we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Labor Code section 5908
The Appeals Board is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence but must ensure due process rights are upheld, including the right to cross-examination.
The Board considered due process principles in evaluating the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code section 5908 states that the appeals board "shall not be bound by the common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but may make inquiry in the manner, through oral testimony and records, which is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and carry out justly the spirit and provisions of this division." The right to present evidence implicates the right to due process. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 175 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 102]; Pence v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 48, 51 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 207, 209].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence showing substantial cross-examination of the witness by lien claimant.
From the decision · page 3Here, lien claimant argues that the WCJ should not have dismissed a witness because lien claimant wanted to cross examine the witness. However, lien claimant appears to be significantly misrepresenting the facts of this case. Lien claimant did conduct a substantial cross examination of the witness as documented in the minutes. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, September 10, 2025, p. 13, line 22 through p. 16, line 7.) The cross examination summarized in the minutes is not limited simply to an email as lien claimant suggests. The summary lasts nearly three pages. Lien claimant David Silver, M.D., and lien claimant's representative, Dan Escamilla and Legal Service Bureau is admonished not to misrepresent or omit material facts in the future.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.