What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's orders rescinded; matter returned for further proceedings.
Defendant's attorney petitioned for reconsideration of WCJ's orders imposing sanctions and requiring personal appearance; WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the orders, returning the matter for further proceedings.
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 WCAB found that the notice of hearing did not clearly require in-person appearance or identify Mr. Na as required to appear, and that due process was not satisfied. The record did not demonstrate bad faith or support the sanctions imposed.
From the decision · page 8Here, as explained above, the notice of hearing for November 19. 2025 did not identify the hearing as an in person hearing, so that a failure to appear in person cannot be the basis for the NIT. Moreover, the initial NIT in the MOH of November 19, 2025 indicated an intent to sanction "David Jane & Associates." The later Order for sanctions actually sanctioned both David Na and David Jane & Associates. The inclusion of David Na should have triggered a new notice of intent as it includes, for all intents and purposes, a separate party. As result, the order is null and void as the precipitating notice did not include both parties and therefore, they were not given notice and opportunity to be heard.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The notice of hearing for November 19, 2025 did not identify the hearing as in person, so failure to appear in person could not be the basis for sanctions.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Due process requires clear notice for sanctions; lack of such notice invalidated the order.
From the decision · page 8Here, as explained above, the notice of hearing for November 19. 2025 did not identify the hearing as an in person hearing, so that a failure to appear in person cannot be the basis for the NIT. Moreover, the initial NIT in the MOH of November 19, 2025 indicated an intent to sanction "David Jane & Associates." The later Order for sanctions actually sanctioned both David Na and David Jane & Associates. The inclusion of David Na should have triggered a new notice of intent as it includes, for all intents and purposes, a separate party. As result, the order is null and void as the precipitating notice did not include both parties and therefore, they were not given notice and opportunity to be heard.
The initial Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions named only the law firm, but the later order included both the law firm and Mr. Na, requiring a new notice for due process.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Including a new party in the sanction order without notice violated due process.
From the decision · page 8Here, as explained above, the notice of hearing for November 19. 2025 did not identify the hearing as an in person hearing, so that a failure to appear in person cannot be the basis for the NIT. Moreover, the initial NIT in the MOH of November 19, 2025 indicated an intent to sanction "David Jane & Associates." The later Order for sanctions actually sanctioned both David Na and David Jane & Associates. The inclusion of David Na should have triggered a new notice of intent as it includes, for all intents and purposes, a separate party. As result, the order is null and void as the precipitating notice did not include both parties and therefore, they were not given notice and opportunity to be heard.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a)
Sanctions may be imposed for bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay; due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard.
The WCAB found that the notice of hearing did not clearly require in-person appearance or identify Mr. Na as required to appear, and that due process was not satisfied, making the sanctions order invalid.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Official EAMS notices did not state that appearances were to be in person; the PTCS only contained a sentence at the bottom about in-person appearances.
From the decision · page 7hearings were to be in person, the official EAMS notices from the WCAB did not state that appearances were in person. In order to override or contradict the official EAMS notice, the WCJ must serve, or cause to be served, a notice of hearing that clearly designates the hearing as in person and clearly identifies the name of the person who is to appear. Instead, the October PTCS only contained a sentence on the bottom that appearances were to be in person. We do not wish to imply that parties should not follow all orders by a WCJ or otherwise obviate parties' obligation to comply with court orders, nevertheless, due process requires that a notice of the hearing must clearly state that it be in person and/or that a particular person must appear. Thus, to the extent that the defendant's attorney's failure to appear in person at the November 19, 2025 hearing was a basis for the NIT, it is invalid.
No objection to Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions, but record did not demonstrate bad faith or lack of authority to resolve issues by appearing attorney.
From the decision · page 9The matter should be returned so that a full trial can be held on penalties and sanctions so that a record may be created to support the bases for sanctions pursuant to section 5813. While the record demonstrates that on one occasion defense counsel may not have appeared, in order for the failure to appear to support an order of sanctions, the WCJ must make a clear contemporaneous record of the failure. In addition, defendant's attorneys did appear at the next two trials either virtually or in person. We sympathize with the fact that to the extent that there were orders in place to appear in person at the trials, in at least one instance, perhaps two, it appears that there were mitigating circumstances that prevented in person appearances. The current record does not demonstrate bad faith.
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.