What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; the August 29, 2024 order requiring an in-person appearance of an adjuster or representative is rescinded and substituted with an order allowing electronic appearance with settlement authority.
Petition for removal from the order requiring an in-person appearance of an adjuster or representative at trial, filed by defendant, reviewed by the WCAB panel.
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 that the order requiring in-person appearance was legally incorrect and that electronic appearance with settlement authority satisfies the regulation, thus granting removal to avoid irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal we will rescind the August 29, 2024 order for an adjuster or representative to appear, and substitute a new order that defendant have someone with settlement authority available electronically pursuant to WCAB Rule 10752(b).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's order required an in-person appearance of an adjuster or representative, explicitly stating 'No remote.'
Favours Applicant prevailed
This was found to be legally incorrect and contrary to the due process right to a fair hearing allowing electronic appearances.
From the decision · page 2Defendant challenges the order of the WCJ to have an adjuster or representative present at trial in-person. The WCJ expressly stated in the order "No remote[.]" (Minutes of Hearing, August 29, 2024.) Recently, the Appeals Board issued an en banc decision in Perez v. Chicago Dogs, 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 29. In that decision, the Appeals Board made clear that "the due process right to a fair hearing and a determination based on the merits is good cause to allow the electronic testimony of the witness." (Id. at * 17, (emphasis in original).) Here, the purpose of the adjuster's presence is not as a witness, but instead to ensure that defendant complies with WCAB Rule 10752(b), which states: "Each required party shall have a person available with settlement authority at all hearings." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752(b).) If a testifying party may appear remotely, and in the interests of providing due process to all parties, it would logically flow that a non-testifying party may also appear remotely upon request.
Defendant did not object to having a person with settlement authority available by phone, only to the in-person appearance requirement.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the Board's decision to allow electronic appearance rather than in-person appearance.
From the decision · page 2In our reading of the petition, it appears that defendant primarily objects to the in-person appearance of an adjuster or representative. Defendant does not appear to object to having such a person available by phone, which is required by regulation. Thus, it would appear that the matter may proceed with the adjuster or representative with settlement authority being available by phone.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted.
The Board applied this standard to determine that the in-person appearance order was legally incorrect and would cause irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 1Removal 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
WCAB Rule 10752(b)
Each required party shall have a person available with settlement authority at all hearings, who may appear electronically.
The Board interpreted this rule to allow electronic appearance with settlement authority instead of in-person appearance.
From the decision · page 2Defendant challenges the order of the WCJ to have an adjuster or representative present at trial in-person. The WCJ expressly stated in the order "No remote[.]" (Minutes of Hearing, August 29, 2024.) Recently, the Appeals Board issued an en banc decision in Perez v. Chicago Dogs, 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 29. In that decision, the Appeals Board made clear that "the due process right to a fair hearing and a determination based on the merits is good cause to allow the electronic testimony of the witness." (Id. at * 17, (emphasis in original).) Here, the purpose of the adjuster's presence is not as a witness, but instead to ensure that defendant complies with WCAB Rule 10752(b), which states: "Each required party shall have a person available with settlement authority at all hearings." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752(b).) If a testifying party may appear remotely, and in the interests of providing due process to all parties, it would logically flow that a non-testifying party may also appear remotely upon request.
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.