What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted; February 7, 2024 order changing venue rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and decision.
Petition for Removal filed by defendant Benchmark Insurance Company, administered by Next Level Administrators, challenging a February 7, 2024 order changing venue and cancelling a trial scheduled in San Diego.
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 found that the defendant was not properly served with the notice of intention to change venue, violating due process, and that the WCJ has broad jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues, including venue changes. The Board rescinded the venue change order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 2In his Report, the WCJ acknowledges that defendant was not properly served with the
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant was not properly served with the notice of intention to change venue.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of proper service violated defendant's due process rights, leading to the rescission of the venue change order.
From the decision · page 2In his Report, the WCJ acknowledges that defendant was not properly served with the
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5803
The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards and may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor.
The Board rescinded the order changing venue based on this continuing jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 2"The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards
Due process requires that parties be provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before orders affecting their rights are made.
The Board found that defendant was not properly served with notice of intention to change venue, violating due process rights.
From the decision · page 2In his Report, the WCJ acknowledges that defendant was not properly served with the
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10330
WCAB Rule 10330 grants WCJs full power, jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine all issues of fact and law presented and to issue orders necessary to fully adjudicate the case.
The Board emphasized the broad jurisdiction of the WCJ to hear and determine all issues, including venue changes.
From the decision · page 2In any case that has been regularly assigned to a workers' compensation judge, the workers' compensation judge shall have full power, jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine all issues of fact and law presented and to issue any interim, interlocutory and final orders, findings, decisions and awards as may be necessary to the full adjudication of the case, including the fixing of the amount of the bond required in Labor Code section 3715. Orders, findings, decisions and awards issued
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10360(a)(1)
WCAB Rule 10360(a)(1) precludes testimony by judicial officers regarding the reasons for or basis of any decision or ruling they have made.
The Board rejected defendant's argument to call the WCJ who issued the original order as a witness, citing this rule.
From the decision · page 3by a workers' compensation judge shall be the orders, findings, decisions and awards of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board unless reconsideration is granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10330.) The broad grant of jurisdiction means that a WCJ is empowered to issue orders as appropriate to ensure an adequate and complete record and to fully adjudicate the case. Thus, we disagree with defendant's contention that the WCJ's jurisdiction is limited to the issue of the order dismissing. Finally, we observe that WCAB Rule 10360(a)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10360(a)(1)) specifically precludes testimony by judicial officers regarding: "The reasons for or basis of any decision or ruling they have made." Consequently, defendant's assertion that a basis for the case to remain venued at the San Diego district office is to obtain testimony from the WCJ who issued the original order is meritless and borders on frivolous. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) Accordingly, we rescind the February 7, 2024 order changing venue, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10421
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10421 prohibits testimony by judicial officers about the reasons for their decisions.
The Board found defendant's assertion to call the WCJ as a witness meritless and bordering on frivolous based on this regulation.
From the decision · page 3by a workers' compensation judge shall be the orders, findings, decisions and awards of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board unless reconsideration is granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10330.) The broad grant of jurisdiction means that a WCJ is empowered to issue orders as appropriate to ensure an adequate and complete record and to fully adjudicate the case. Thus, we disagree with defendant's contention that the WCJ's jurisdiction is limited to the issue of the order dismissing. Finally, we observe that WCAB Rule 10360(a)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10360(a)(1)) specifically precludes testimony by judicial officers regarding: "The reasons for or basis of any decision or ruling they have made." Consequently, defendant's assertion that a basis for the case to remain venued at the San Diego district office is to obtain testimony from the WCJ who issued the original order is meritless and borders on frivolous. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) Accordingly, we rescind the February 7, 2024 order changing venue, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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.