What the panel ordered
Petitions for removal filed by defendants Twin City Fire Insurance Company and Citizens Insurance Company of America were dismissed as moot.
Petitions for removal from the WCJ's April 20, 2022 minute order setting the matter for Mandatory Settlement Conference were filed by defendants and later rendered moot when the matter was taken off calendar by the WCJ on May 25, 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 petitions for removal were rendered moot when the matter was taken off calendar by the WCJ on May 25, 2022, and thus were dismissed. The Board also noted that a response filed by defendant Hartford without leave was not considered.
From the decision · page 1Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company, administered by the Hartford (Hartford) has filed a May 10, 2022 petition for removal from the WCJ's April 20, 2022 minute order setting this matter for Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). Co-defendant Citizens Insurance Company of America, administered by Hanover Insurance Group (Hanover) has also filed a May 10, 2022 petition for removal from the same minute order. On May 25, 2022, the matter was ordered taken off calendar by the WCJ. As a result, both Petitions for Removal have been rendered moot and will be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The matter was ordered taken off calendar by the WCJ on May 25, 2022.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This action rendered the petitions for removal moot, leading to their dismissal.
From the decision · page 1Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company, administered by the Hartford (Hartford) has filed a May 10, 2022 petition for removal from the WCJ's April 20, 2022 minute order setting this matter for Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). Co-defendant Citizens Insurance Company of America, administered by Hanover Insurance Group (Hanover) has also filed a May 10, 2022 petition for removal from the same minute order. On May 25, 2022, the matter was ordered taken off calendar by the WCJ. As a result, both Petitions for Removal have been rendered moot and will be dismissed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10964(a)
Supplemental petitions or pleadings or responses other than the answer will be considered only when specifically requested or approved by the Appeals Board.
The Board reminded defendant Hartford that its response to the Judge's Report and Recommendation was filed without leave and would not be considered.
From the decision · page 1While the issue is now moot, we observe that defendant the Hartford has filed a "Response to Judge's Report and Recommendation," without first seeking leave of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. We remind defendant the Hartford that supplemental petitions or pleadings or responses other than the answer will be considered only when specifically requested or approved by the Appeals Board. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964(a).) In addition, Board Rule 10964 provides that "a party seeking to file a supplemental pleading shall file a petition setting forth good cause for the Appeals Board to approve the filing of a supplemental pleading and shall attach the proposed pleading." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964(b).) Accordingly, the response will not be considered.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10964(b)
A party seeking to file a supplemental pleading shall file a petition setting forth good cause for the Appeals Board to approve the filing of a supplemental pleading and shall attach the proposed pleading.
The Board noted the requirement for leave to file supplemental pleadings and did not consider the unauthorized response filed by defendant Hartford.
From the decision · page 1While the issue is now moot, we observe that defendant the Hartford has filed a "Response to Judge's Report and Recommendation," without first seeking leave of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. We remind defendant the Hartford that supplemental petitions or pleadings or responses other than the answer will be considered only when specifically requested or approved by the Appeals Board. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964(a).) In addition, Board Rule 10964 provides that "a party seeking to file a supplemental pleading shall file a petition setting forth good cause for the Appeals Board to approve the filing of a supplemental pleading and shall attach the proposed pleading." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964(b).) Accordingly, the response will not be considered.
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.