ADJ7965556 · September 28, 2022

Due process requires a complete record and opportunity for hearing; absence of evidentiary record prevented evaluation of WCJ's orders, so orders were rescinded and matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 4The statutory and regulatory duties of a WCJ include the issuance of a decision that complies with Labor Code section 5313. An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision and the WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [2001 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Bd. en banc)4 (Hamilton).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at 475.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]" (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).)

The orders by the WCJ were interlocutory procedural orders, not final orders, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely.

From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.)3 A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not

Removal was granted because petitioner showed substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted, and reconsideration was not an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 4Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we will grant removal because we are persuaded that petitioner has shown that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.

The WCJ's orders on January 19, 2022 were interlocutory procedural orders, not final orders.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This meant the petition for reconsideration was not timely and had to be dismissed.

From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.)3 A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not

Petitioner showed substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was not granted.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This justified granting removal as an extraordinary remedy.

From the decision · page 4Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we will grant removal because we are persuaded that petitioner has shown that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.

No evidentiary record was created at the January 19, 2022 hearing.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Due process requires a record and opportunity for hearing; absence of record prevented meaningful review, so orders were rescinded and matter returned to WCJ.

From the decision · page 5Due process guarantees all parties the right to notice of hearing and a fair hearing. (Rucker, supra, at 157-158.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to the opportunity to call and cross- examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker, supra, at 157-158 citing Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21]; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4 703, 710 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].) Here, no documents or testimony were admitted into evidence at the January 19, 2022 hearing. Moreover, due process requires that the parties have the opportunity for a hearing and to create a record so that the orders can be meaningfully considered upon review. In the absence of an evidentiary record, we are unable to evaluate the basis for the WCJ's orders on the January 19, 2022 MOH. Therefore, we will rescind the January 19, 2022 orders and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Addresses the neck injury in his report supporting the need to amend the application to include the neck.

From the decision · page 2Secondly, the applicant to file an amended application including the neck. This has been at issue as Dr. Sirakoff addresses this in his report. The amended application shall be filed within 30 days of today's date.

Regular physician who must reevaluate the applicant and address the cervical spine and whole person impairment.

From the decision · page 2Fourth, Dr. Woods is to address the cervical spine; Dr. Woods to reevaluate the applicant.

Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural orders are not final.

The WCJ's orders were interlocutory and thus not final, so the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

From the decision · page 3A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.)3 A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final' "]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274

Removal is granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is not adequate.

Removal was granted because petitioner showed substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was not adequate.

From the decision · page 4Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we will grant removal because we are persuaded that petitioner has shown that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted.

Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473; Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.; Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284

WCJ must make and file findings on all facts involved and refer to evidence in decision; due process requires notice and fair hearing with opportunity to present evidence.

Due process was not met as no evidentiary record was created; orders were rescinded and matter returned to WCJ.

From the decision · page 4The statutory and regulatory duties of a WCJ include the issuance of a decision that complies with Labor Code section 5313. An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision and the WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [2001 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Bd. en banc)4 (Hamilton).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at 475.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]" (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).)

No evidentiary record was created at the January 19, 2022 hearing

From the decision · page 5Due process guarantees all parties the right to notice of hearing and a fair hearing. (Rucker, supra, at 157-158.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to the opportunity to call and cross- examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker, supra, at 157-158 citing Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21]; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4 703, 710 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].) Here, no documents or testimony were admitted into evidence at the January 19, 2022 hearing. Moreover, due process requires that the parties have the opportunity for a hearing and to create a record so that the orders can be meaningfully considered upon review. In the absence of an evidentiary record, we are unable to evaluate the basis for the WCJ's orders on the January 19, 2022 MOH. Therefore, we will rescind the January 19, 2022 orders and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.