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 petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, were indisputably without merit, and caused significant delays and resource waste, warranting full sanctions.
From the decision · page 5Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett halted trial proceedings in eight cases by filing petitions for reconsideration that were indisputably without merit and filed for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay. Most of these petitions were filed on the morning of trial without any advance notice to the court, opposing counsel, or witnesses. Their conduct was deliberate, which is evidenced by both the pattern of filing such petitions in eight separate cases and their failure to appear in each of these cases after the petition for reconsideration was filed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed eight petitions for reconsideration on or near the day of trial after their requests for continuances were denied, causing immediate halt of trial proceedings.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This conduct was found to be willful, without merit, and intended to disrupt or delay proceedings, justifying sanctions.
From the decision · page 5Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett halted trial proceedings in eight cases by filing petitions for reconsideration that were indisputably without merit and filed for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay. Most of these petitions were filed on the morning of trial without any advance notice to the court, opposing counsel, or witnesses. Their conduct was deliberate, which is evidenced by both the pattern of filing such petitions in eight separate cases and their failure to appear in each of these cases after the petition for reconsideration was filed.
The petitions for reconsideration were filed without advance notice to the court, opposing counsel, or witnesses, causing significant delays and resource waste.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The pattern of last-minute filings disrupted the Appeals Board's work and delayed determinations of applicants' benefits, supporting the imposition of sanctions.
From the decision · page 8Instead, Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett's responses trivialize the act of filing multiple frivolous petitions for reconsideration as an "inconvenience." However, their conduct here goes far beyond inconvenience. The filing of frivolous petitions for reconsideration significantly hampers the work of the Appeals Board. Each petition costs significant time and resources and delays the issuance of other decisions pending at the Appeals Board. More significantly, it delays a determination of applicant's benefits in each of the cases at bar. We also observe that the pattern of last-minute petitions for reconsideration causes delays and wastes time and resources because opposing counsel, witnesses, court reporters, and trial judges reserve time for hearings that then must be taken off calendar. In addition, wasting the time reserved for the cancelled hearings impacts other litigants because it impacts their access to the trial calendar. Trivializing their conduct as "inconveniences" borders on frivolous and does not warrant a reduction in sanctions.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5813
Sanctions imposed for filing frivolous petitions for reconsideration to delay proceedings.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10421
Appeals Board Rule 10421 allows imposition of sanctions and reasonable expenses including attorney's fees and costs for bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
Sanctions and reasonable expenses ordered against Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Pattern of filing last-minute petitions for reconsideration causing delays and wasting resources, including opposing counsel, witnesses, court reporters, and trial judges reserving time for hearings that then must be taken off calendar.
From the decision · page 8Instead, Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett's responses trivialize the act of filing multiple frivolous petitions for reconsideration as an "inconvenience." However, their conduct here goes far beyond inconvenience. The filing of frivolous petitions for reconsideration significantly hampers the work of the Appeals Board. Each petition costs significant time and resources and delays the issuance of other decisions pending at the Appeals Board. More significantly, it delays a determination of applicant's benefits in each of the cases at bar. We also observe that the pattern of last-minute petitions for reconsideration causes delays and wastes time and resources because opposing counsel, witnesses, court reporters, and trial judges reserve time for hearings that then must be taken off calendar. In addition, wasting the time reserved for the cancelled hearings impacts other litigants because it impacts their access to the trial calendar. Trivializing their conduct as "inconveniences" borders on frivolous and does not warrant a reduction in sanctions.
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.