What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; prior order taking matter off calendar rescinded; discovery closed; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and final decision by WCJ.
Defendant filed a third petition for removal after the WCJ vacated submission and ordered the matter off calendar to allow further record development.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 15, 2022.
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 Board balanced the duty to develop the record with the parties' obligation to exercise due diligence and found that the medical record was not developed despite ample opportunity, justifying removal and closure of discovery.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a petition for removal, requesting that the appeals board rescind the Order dated October 6, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) vacated submission and ordered this matter off calendar to allow the parties to develop the record.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The parties submitted the case for decision three times and the WCJ vacated submission three times due to insufficient record development.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This demonstrated lack of diligence justified granting the defendant's petition for removal and closing discovery.
From the decision · page 1In this case, the parties have submitted the case for decision three times and the WCJ has vacated submission three times. This is defendant's third petition for removal. The medical record has not been developed as directed by the WCJ despite ample opportunity to do so.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389; San Bernardino Community Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928
Duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue, balanced with parties' obligation to exercise due diligence to complete discovery prior to mandatory settlement conference.
The Board applied this standard to deny the WCJ's recommendation to deny removal and instead granted removal due to lack of record development despite ample opportunity.
From the decision · page 1The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; see also Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924].) However, the duty to develop the record must be balanced with the parties' obligation to exercise due diligence to complete necessary discovery
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.