ADJ14242832 · March 7, 2025

The WCJ failed to review the Declaration of Readiness to Proceed and the defendant's objection thereto, depriving defendant of a full opportunity to develop the record and a fair hearing, requiring rescission of the order and remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 2On August 13, 2024, defendant filed a verified objection to the DOR, on the basis that applicant's DOR was defective as it failed to list any good faith efforts to resolve the matter within the body of the DOR, in compliance with Cal. Code of Regulations, tit. 8 § 10742(c).1

Applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed did not list any good faith efforts to resolve the matter as required by WCAB Rule 10742(c).

Favours Defendant prevailed

This defect was the basis for defendant's objection and petition for removal.

From the decision · page 2On August 13, 2024, defendant filed a verified objection to the DOR, on the basis that applicant's DOR was defective as it failed to list any good faith efforts to resolve the matter within the body of the DOR, in compliance with Cal. Code of Regulations, tit. 8 § 10742(c).1

Defendant had insufficient time to evaluate vocational rehabilitation report and conduct discovery before trial was set.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This lack of opportunity deprived defendant of a fair hearing and was a basis for removal.

From the decision · page 2The Petition reiterates defendant's initial objection to applicant's DOR based upon WCAB Rule 10742(c), and further asserts that they have been deprived of the ability to further develop the record, as they had insufficient time to evaluate the vocational rehabilitation report of Paul Broadus, dated June 20, 2024, received by them on July 9, 2024, as well as conduct other discovery.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 10742(c)

WCAB Rule 10742(c) requires a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to state good faith efforts to resolve the dispute and completion of discovery.

Defendant objected to applicant's DOR for failure to comply with this rule, which was a basis for removal.

From the decision · page 2On August 13, 2024, defendant filed a verified objection to the DOR, on the basis that applicant's DOR was defective as it failed to list any good faith efforts to resolve the matter within the body of the DOR, in compliance with Cal. Code of Regulations, tit. 8 § 10742(c).1

Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158

Due process requires a fair hearing including opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

The Board found defendant was deprived of due process by the WCJ's order setting trial without addressing objections.

From the decision · page 3Further, all parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is "... one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant..." (Id. at 158.) A fair hearing includes but is not limited to the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at 157-158; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 710 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].) Due process requires "a `hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 595 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865).) Although due process is "a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors," it generally requires the right to present relevant evidence. (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 534.)

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

WCJ must refer to evidence in opinion on decision to enable meaningful reconsideration.

The WCJ failed to review the DOR and objection, violating this standard.

From the decision · page 2The Report of the WCJ addresses these contentions and recommends that the Petition be granted, due to a failure of the WCJ to review the DOR and objection thereto. Also acknowledged by the WCJ is that full development of the record is necessary per Hamilton. (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).)

Defendant's objection to applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed for failure to list good faith efforts to resolve the matter

From the decision · page 2On August 13, 2024, defendant filed a verified objection to the DOR, on the basis that applicant's DOR was defective as it failed to list any good faith efforts to resolve the matter within the body of the DOR, in compliance with Cal. Code of Regulations, tit. 8 § 10742(c).1

Defendant's insufficient time to evaluate vocational rehabilitation report and conduct discovery

From the decision · page 2The Petition reiterates defendant's initial objection to applicant's DOR based upon WCAB Rule 10742(c), and further asserts that they have been deprived of the ability to further develop the record, as they had insufficient time to evaluate the vocational rehabilitation report of Paul Broadus, dated June 20, 2024, received by them on July 9, 2024, as well as conduct other discovery.