What the panel ordered
Opinion and Decision After Removal; Order Imposing Sanctions and Costsp. 1
The Appeals Board granted removal on its own motion, issued an Order of Consolidation and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions and Costs (En Banc), received no response, and issued this en banc Opinion and Decision After Removal imposing sanctions.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 7, 2024, June 17, 2024, June 17, 2024, April 8, 2024.
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.
Sanctions imposed because petitions were filed to delay proceedings and were indisputably without merit.
From the decision · page 1We previously granted removal in these matters on our own motion to provide an opportunity to study and address the issues of sanctions and costs under Lab. Code, § 5813.
Sanctions imposed because petitions were filed to delay proceedings and were indisputably without merit.
From the decision · page 1in two (2) instances where it appeared that she filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive
Sanctions imposed because petitions were filed to delay proceedings and were indisputably without merit.
From the decision · page 1or where it appeared that such actions were indisputably without merit
Sanctions imposed because petitions were filed to delay proceedings and were indisputably without merit.
From the decision · page 3bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Garrett Law Group through Susan Garrett and its hearing representative Lance Garrett filed petitions for reconsideration on the day of trial solely to delay the trial proceedings
Favours Defendant prevailed
This conduct was deliberate and caused trial level proceedings to immediately halt
From the decision · page 2Garrett Law Group through Susan Garrett and its hearing representative Lance Garrett, while supervised by attorney Susan Garrett, set issues for trial, and then on the day of trial, filed for reconsideration as a means of preventing the trial from moving forward.
Neither Susan Garrett nor Lance Garrett responded to the Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions
Favours Defendant prevailed
No defense or justification provided for their conduct
From the decision · page 5Neither Susan Garrett nor Lance Garrett responded to our Notice.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code
§ 5813(a)
authorizes sanctions for bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay
From the decision · page 3The Appeals Board is authorized to impose sanctions under section 5813, which states, in pertinent part: (a) The workers’ compensation referee or appeals board may order a party, the party’s attorney, or both, to pay any reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, incurred by another party as a result of bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b)
WCAB Rule 10421(b)
lists actions subject to sanctions including filing petitions without reasonable justification and actions indisputably without merit done to cause delay
From the decision · page 3As detailed in the Notice, WCAB Rule 10421(b) provides a comprehensive but nonexclusive list of actions that could be subject to sanctions.
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.