What the panel ordered
Petition for removal granted; September 9, 2025 Findings and Order rescinded; new Findings of Fact and Order substituted denying defendant's petition to quash the deposition of the adjuster; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on September 9, 2025, by the WCJ, which had quashed the deposition subpoena of the claims adjuster, was filed by applicant.
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 WCJ's order quashing the deposition subpoena violated applicant's due process rights, causing irreparable harm and substantial prejudice, thus justifying removal. The Board rescinded the prior order and denied the petition to quash the deposition.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the Findings and Order issued on September 9, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not present good cause to take the deposition of the claims adjuster and granted defendant's petition to quash the deposition subpoena.1
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's order quashing the deposition subpoena effectively precluded applicant from gathering discovery in support of her petition for penalties and/or sanctions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This order violated applicant's due process rights, constituting irreparable harm and substantial prejudice, justifying 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, the WCJ ordered the deposition of the claims administrator quashed, which effectively precludes applicant from gathering discovery in support of her petition for penalties and/or sanctions. The order violates applicant's due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case.
The rules the panel named
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 removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The Board found that quashing the deposition subpoena violated due process and caused irreparable harm, justifying 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, the WCJ ordered the deposition of the claims administrator quashed, which effectively precludes applicant from gathering discovery in support of her petition for penalties and/or sanctions. The order violates applicant's due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant alleged bad faith by the adjuster; no evidence defendant showed bad faith; applicant had legitimate questions about adjuster's duty to investigate; applicant has due process right to depose witnesses.
From the decision · page 2Here, applicant has alleged bad faith on the part of the adjuster. We do not see any evidence in the record where defendant has established that applicant is proceeding in bad faith. It appears that applicant has legitimate questions regarding the adjuster's duty to investigate. Applicant further has a due process right to depose the witnesses in this case. Accordingly, we will rescind the September 9, 2025 Findings and Order and substitute an order denying the petition to quash.
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.