What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Sanctions Order rescinded; case returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant Occusure Claims Services seeking relief from a Sanctions Order issued by a WCJ on April 17, 2025, for failure to appear at two hearings and failure to respond to a Sanctions Notice of Intention.
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 granted reconsideration because Occusure was erroneously joined, did not willfully ignore orders, and the failure to appear was due to clerical and administrative oversight, protecting due process rights.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Occusure was erroneously joined as a party and had no involvement in the claims.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This showed the failure to appear was not intentional but due to administrative oversight, supporting reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6dates of August 28, 2014, and May 23, 2017. The matter was set for hearings before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on August 27, 2024, and October 8, 2024. At all relevant times, the claims were administered by AmTrust Claims. Occusure Claims Services was not the third-party administrator for FFBH Motors during either period and had no involvement in adjusting or managing the claims. Nonetheless, Occusure was erroneously joined as a party to the matter.
Occusure was not properly served with the original Application, DOR, and status conference notice until July 31, 2024.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This impacted due process and justified reconsideration and rescission of sanctions.
From the decision · page 7We also note that the potential impact of the failure to properly serve Occusure with the original Application, the original DOR filed by Tobin Lucks, and the original notice of status conference in these cases should be considered when this matter is returned for further proceedings. For example, Occusure was not served with anything in these cases until July 31, 2024 when it was served with the July 16, 2024 Minutes of Hearing. Even so, Occusure had yet to be served with the Amended Application, which was thereafter served, by mail, on August 5, 2024.5 Applicant's DOR was then served on Occusure on September 17, 2024 again, by mail.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5813
Labor Code section 5813 authorizes sanctions for failure to appear at hearings.
The WCJ had authority to issue sanctions for Occusure's failure to appear at the August 27, 2024 status conference and October 8, 2024 MSC.
From the decision · page 5It is undisputed that Occusure was named as a party in and served with the Amended Application on August 5, 2024. Consequently, Occusure was thereafter required to appear at every noticed hearing in these cases (excluding lien conferences and lien trials). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752 (a).) It is also undisputed that Occusure was served with notice of but failed to appear at the October 8, 2024 MSC without communicating with anyone regarding its non-appearance. When a party fails to appear at an MSC without a showing of good cause, the WCJ may issue a notice of intention for any purpose allowed by WCAB Rule 10832, including to issue sanctions against that party. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10755(b), 100832(a)(3).) In addition, the failure to appear at a duly noticed status conference is a failure to comply with the court's order and is therefore sufficient cause to support the WCJ's Sanctions NOI based on section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10421. (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10561(b)(4).) Therefore, the WCJ had the authority to issue the Sanctions NOI as a result of Occusure's failure to appear at the August 27, 2024 status conference and the October 8, 2024 MSC.
Board Rule 10561
Board Rule 10561 authorizes sanctions for failure to comply with court orders.
Sanctions were authorized for failure to appear at status conference and MSC.
From the decision · page 5It is undisputed that Occusure was named as a party in and served with the Amended Application on August 5, 2024. Consequently, Occusure was thereafter required to appear at every noticed hearing in these cases (excluding lien conferences and lien trials). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752 (a).) It is also undisputed that Occusure was served with notice of but failed to appear at the October 8, 2024 MSC without communicating with anyone regarding its non-appearance. When a party fails to appear at an MSC without a showing of good cause, the WCJ may issue a notice of intention for any purpose allowed by WCAB Rule 10832, including to issue sanctions against that party. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10755(b), 100832(a)(3).) In addition, the failure to appear at a duly noticed status conference is a failure to comply with the court's order and is therefore sufficient cause to support the WCJ's Sanctions NOI based on section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10421. (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10561(b)(4).) Therefore, the WCJ had the authority to issue the Sanctions NOI as a result of Occusure's failure to appear at the August 27, 2024 status conference and the October 8, 2024 MSC.
Code of Civil Procedure section 473
Code of Civil Procedure section 473 allows relief from sanctions for mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
Relief was granted due to clerical and administrative oversight, not willful misconduct.
From the decision · page 6Code of Civil Procedure section 473 states that we may, "upon any terms as may be just,
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Failure to properly serve Occusure with original Application, DOR, and status conference notice until July 31, 2024, impacting due process.
From the decision · page 7We also note that the potential impact of the failure to properly serve Occusure with the original Application, the original DOR filed by Tobin Lucks, and the original notice of status conference in these cases should be considered when this matter is returned for further proceedings. For example, Occusure was not served with anything in these cases until July 31, 2024 when it was served with the July 16, 2024 Minutes of Hearing. Even so, Occusure had yet to be served with the Amended Application, which was thereafter served, by mail, on August 5, 2024.5 Applicant's DOR was then served on Occusure on September 17, 2024 again, by mail.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.