ADJ18164316 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's December 15, 2025 Findings and Award rescinded; case returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's December 15, 2025 Findings and Award, which was rescinded and the matter returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Read the official decision →

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.

Permanent total disabilityApplicant prevailedright shoulder · big toes

The WCJ's finding of 0% permanent disability was challenged due to lack of substantial evidence and procedural due process violations related to discovery closure before Dr. Hardy's deposition. The Appeals Board found that the matter required further development, including admission of Dr. Hardy's deposition transcript, to ensure due process and substantial justice.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 15, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant, while employed as a correctional deputy trainee, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right shoulder and big toes; that her injury caused temporary disability for which she has been adequately compensated; that her injury caused 0% permanent disability, entitling applicant to zero weeks of disability; that her permanent and stationary date is August 20, 2024; and, that she will require further medical treatment.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant's objection to Dr. Hardy's medical determination and request to keep discovery open for his deposition.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This objection and request demonstrated that the record was not fully developed and that due process required admission of the deposition transcript.

From the decision · page 10Applicant's lack of intention to waive her objection is further demonstrated by the subsequent statements by her hearing representative that Dr. Hardy's deposition was pending, and by applicant's requests for discovery to remain open until the December 2025 deposition was complete. (8/20/25 PTCS at pp. 2-3; 8/21/25 MOH; 10/6/25 Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence at pp. 2-3.) We emphasize that the parties stipulated on the PTCS that Dr. Hardy's deposition was set for December 16, 2025. We conclude that applicant did not waive her objection to the matter proceeding to an MSC. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10744(d).)

The WCJ denied applicant's petition for remote hearing without holding a hearing to create a record, violating due process.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This procedural error required reconsideration and further proceedings to ensure due process rights were protected.

From the decision · page 8In Chicago Dogs, we held that a hearing must take place when a WCJ denies a request for a virtual appearance in order to create a record and in keeping with due process. (Id. at p. 840.) We further held that the due process right to a hearing is good cause to appear remotely. (Ibid.) Despite what we believe to be clear direction, the WCJ failed to hold such a hearing, and instead denied the petition outright.

Dr. Hardy's deposition was scheduled and completed after the WCJ's decision but before the Appeals Board's decision.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Admission of this deposition transcript was necessary for a fully developed record and substantial justice.

From the decision · page 11Nevertheless, on due process grounds, we rescind the decision and return the matter to the WCJ to allow the transcript of Dr. Hardy's December 16, 2025 deposition to be admitted into evidence and considered by the WCJ, and for the WCJ to determine if further discovery is needed. As Dr. Hardy's deposition is already completed, we observe that no significant delay will occur in these proceedings as a result of our determination that this matter should be returned to the trial court for the deposition transcript to be entered into evidence and considered by the WCJ.

ADJ18164316 · March 9, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page