What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted; November 3, 2022 Order rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
Petition for Removal of the Pre-trial Conference Statement Order of November 3, 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 Appeals Board found that the closure of discovery prejudiced defendant by preventing its vocational expert reevaluation despite reasonable diligence in scheduling, and that this prejudice could not be remedied at trial or by reconsideration, thus granting the Petition for Removal.
From the decision · page 4We therefore conclude that the closure of discovery on November 3, 2022 substantially prejudiced defendant, as it precluded defendant from obtaining its previously scheduled expert vocational reporting despite reasonable diligence in scheduling and serving notice of the pending reevaluations. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Additionally, we do not believe that the substantial prejudice arising out of the closure of discovery can be remedied during trial proceedings, or by Petition for Reconsideration. (Ibid.)