What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant challenging exclusion of exhibits D and E in case ADJ16699214; WCJ report recommended denial of reconsideration; WCAB panel adopted and incorporated WCJ report and denied reconsideration.
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 court found no plausible explanation for the late discovery and non-disclosure of exhibits D and E, and upheld their exclusion as a sanction for failure to produce relevant documents timely.
From the decision · page 9Petitioner is correct that a formal MSC was held only in one of the two cases. The court accepts as correct that defense counsel's awareness of Exhibits D and E in his own file first arose when he said it did, specifically mid-way through the first day of trial. Both exhibits, however, were relevant to the statute contentions in both cases. The obligation of a party to respond to reasonable requests for discovery is not a passive one. Petitioner offered (and offers) no plausible explanation as to why the letters were not earlier recognized and produced when first demanded by applicant. A failure to produce relevant documents, including those predictably destined to be exhibits on fulcrum issues, may result in their exclusion from evidence. In this case, the court determined Exhibits D and E must be excluded.