ADJ17108250 · May 19, 2026

The WCAB found no substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's imposition of sanctions and attorney's fees and noted the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over some defendants at the time of the F&O.

From the decision · page 12In light of the foregoing, we do not believe there is substantial evidence to justify the WCJ's decision to issue sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs.

Southeast, Markel, State National, and Packard were dismissed on December 10, 2025, before the WCJ's February 18, 2026 Findings and Order.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The WCJ had no jurisdiction over these entities at the time of the F&O, making sanctions against them void.

From the decision · page 13Lastly, we note that the WCJ dismissed Southeast, Markel, State National, and Packard on December 10, 2025. Given their dismissal, the WCJ had no jurisdiction over them at the time of the February 18, 2026 F&O. As such, any sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs levied against said entities through the said F&O are rendered void.

The WCJ failed to serve a proper notice of hearing for in-person appearances as required by WCAB Rule 10750.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Due process requires clear notice of in-person hearings; the lack of such notice invalidated the Notice of Intention to impose sanctions based on failure to appear in person.

From the decision · page 11Moreover, WCAB Rule 10750 requires that a separate notice of hearing be served. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10750.) Here, despite the WCJ's belief that she provided notice to the parties that appearances at the hearings 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. 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 clearly state that it be in person and/or that a particular person must appear. Thus, to the extent that a basis for the NIT was a failure to appear in person, the NIT is invalid.

CBE Law Group's filing of a letter instead of a formal petition for dismissal was not sanctionable conduct.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This undermined the basis for sanctions against CBE and related parties.

From the decision · page 12Taking into consideration Chicago Dogs, CBE Law Group's filing of a letter rather than a formal petition for dismissal does not rise to the level of sanctionable behavior. We again note that the WCJ has the authority to order corrections to the record, especially here where the WCJ was well aware that Southeast, Markel, State National, and Packard were not properly parties and had never been joined, and it was applicant's error in identifying Markel initially which triggered the confusion.

Labor Code section 5813

Labor Code section 5813 authorizes sanctions for bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

The WCAB applied this standard to evaluate the WCJ's imposition of sanctions and attorney's fees.

From the decision · page 8Turning now to the merits of the Petition, section 5813 states, in pertinent part that: (a) The workers' compensation referee or appeals board may order a party, the

WCJ lacked jurisdiction over Southeast, Markel, State National, and Packard at the time of the February 18, 2026 F&O, rendering sanctions against them void.

From the decision · page 13Lastly, we note that the WCJ dismissed Southeast, Markel, State National, and Packard on December 10, 2025. Given their dismissal, the WCJ had no jurisdiction over them at the time of the February 18, 2026 F&O. As such, any sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs levied against said entities through the said F&O are rendered void.

WCJ failed to provide proper notice of in-person hearings as required by WCAB Rule 10750, invalidating the Notice of Intention to impose sanctions based on failure to appear in person.

From the decision · page 11Moreover, WCAB Rule 10750 requires that a separate notice of hearing be served. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10750.) Here, despite the WCJ's belief that she provided notice to the parties that appearances at the hearings 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. 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 clearly state that it be in person and/or that a particular person must appear. Thus, to the extent that a basis for the NIT was a failure to appear in person, the NIT is invalid.

CBE Law Group's filing of a letter rather than a formal petition for dismissal did not constitute sanctionable behavior.

From the decision · page 12Taking into consideration Chicago Dogs, CBE Law Group's filing of a letter rather than a formal petition for dismissal does not rise to the level of sanctionable behavior. We again note that the WCJ has the authority to order corrections to the record, especially here where the WCJ was well aware that Southeast, Markel, State National, and Packard were not properly parties and had never been joined, and it was applicant's error in identifying Markel initially which triggered the confusion.