What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; sanctions order rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Petition for reconsideration of a sanctions order issued March 17, 2026, against applicant's attorney's law firm and defendant insurance company for failure to appear at a status conference.
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 record lacked evidence as to whether applicant's attorney received the Notice of Intention or whether the failure to appear was deliberate or excusable; due process required a hearing and a record before imposing sanctions.
From the decision · page 6As a matter of due process, applicant's attorney should have been provided with a hearing, and a record should have been created. Initially, we observe that applicant may very well have "appeared" at the conference as defined in WCAB Rule 10305(c), but since the record is devoid of any evidence, we cannot make the determination as to whether applicant satisfied the requirement. While sanctions can be imposed for a "[f]ailure to appear or appearing late at a conference or trial where a reasonable excuse is not offered..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(b)(1)), there is no evidence to determine if the excuse was reasonable, as no evidence has been admitted to the record. There is also no evidence regarding whether applicant's attorney received the NIT. Further, we observe that the NIT and the Order present other structural problems, as the WCJ did not specifically identify the offending person by name and only identified the law firm. Additionally, as noted previously, as part of the record, the WCJ should admit evidence as to whether the NIT and the Order were properly served on all parties.