What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted, January 26, 2022 Order Denying Petitions to Quash rescinded, matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for Removal of the Order Denying Petitions to Quash granted, WCJ's decision rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold October 5, 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 WCJ denied the petitions for failure to attach meet and confer declarations as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c), but the Appeals Board found the WCJ's denial improper and granted removal to allow further proceedings and clarification of the applicable rules.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the January 26, 2022 Order Denying Petitions to Quash and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions (Order). Therein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied eight petitions filed by defendant seeking to quash various subpoenas duces tecum directed to third-parties, because the defendant failed to file meet and confer declarations in support of its petitions as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c). The Order further noticed the court's intention to impose monetary sanctions on defendant. Defendant contends the subpoenas should be quashed because they are duplicative, and because defendant received inadequate notice of the subpoenas due to defective service. (Petition for Removal, dated February 28, 2022, at 5:11.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to attach meet and confer declarations to its petitions to quash subpoenas as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure was the basis for the WCJ's denial of the petitions to quash and the Notice of Intent to impose sanctions.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the January 26, 2022 Order Denying Petitions to Quash and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions (Order). Therein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied eight petitions filed by defendant seeking to quash various subpoenas duces tecum directed to third-parties, because the defendant failed to file meet and confer declarations in support of its petitions as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c). The Order further noticed the court's intention to impose monetary sanctions on defendant. Defendant contends the subpoenas should be quashed because they are duplicative, and because defendant received inadequate notice of the subpoenas due to defective service. (Petition for Removal, dated February 28, 2022, at 5:11.)
The WCJ vacated the Notice of Intent to impose sanctions after defendant's explanation of inadvertence and excusable neglect.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This vacating of sanctions influenced the Appeals Board's decision to grant removal and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 3On February 17, 2022, the WCJ issued an Order Vacating the Notice of Intent to impose
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Code of Civil Procedure
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c)
Requires meet and confer declaration to accompany motions to stay or quash depositions; central to the denial of the petitions to quash in this case.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks removal of the January 26, 2022 Order Denying Petitions to Quash and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions (Order). Therein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied eight petitions filed by defendant seeking to quash various subpoenas duces tecum directed to third-parties, because the defendant failed to file meet and confer declarations in support of its petitions as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c). The Order further noticed the court's intention to impose monetary sanctions on defendant. Defendant contends the subpoenas should be quashed because they are duplicative, and because defendant received inadequate notice of the subpoenas due to defective service. (Petition for Removal, dated February 28, 2022, at 5:11.)
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5710
Amended to conform deposition procedures in workers' compensation to civil discovery rules; relevant to the WCJ's and Appeals Board's analysis.
From the decision · page 4DISCUSSION Labor Code section 5710 provides for the taking of depositions in workers' compensation proceedings. In 2004, AB 3081 amended Section 5710 to provide for "deposition of witnesses...to be taken in the manner prescribed by law for like depositions in civil actions in the superior courts of this state under Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure." (Lab. Code § 5710(a).) Citing to this section, the WCJ denied the defendant's multiple petitions to quash for failure of compliance with Code of Civ. Proc. Section 2025.410(c), which requires a meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040 to accompany any motion to stay. Defendant's Petition for Removal primarily addresses the NIT re sanctions, but also discusses defendant's rationale for the filing of eight separate petitions. The WCJ later vacated his NIT re sanctions. (Order Vacating Notice of Intent, dated February 17, 2022.) However, the defendant continues to request relief from the order denying the petitions to quash.
WCAB Rule 10640
WCAB Rule 10640
Rule governing subpoenas in workers' compensation proceedings, found to be outdated and recommended to be conformed to Labor Code section 5710.
From the decision · page 3Rule 10640 should be deemed amended to conform with Labor Code § 5710. Parties in litigation are required to meet and confer and to attach a meet and confer declaration to any Petition to Quash a Subpoena. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.410.) Defendant failed to attach any meet and confer declaration to any of its petitions in this case. Accordingly, it was proper to deny the petitions. Failure to meet and confer, and failure to act with substantial justification may also result in the court ordering sanctions. I respectfully recommend that removal be granted in this case and that the Appeals Board address Rule 10640, which appears to be an anachronism. (Report at p. 5.)
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.