Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
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).)