What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal is granted, the Minutes of Hearing dated June 12, 2025 are rescinded, and the matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.
Defendant filed a Petition for Removal after Minutes of Hearing were issued in error for unrelated cases involving different injured workers with the same name. The WCAB reviewed the record and the WCJ's report, adopted the WCJ's recommendation, and granted removal, rescinding the erroneous Minutes of Hearing and 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 Minutes of Hearing were issued in error for unrelated cases involving different injured workers with the same name. The WCJ and WCAB agreed the error should be corrected by rescinding the Minutes and remanding for proper proceedings.
From the decision · page 5Upon further review of this case, it appears defense counsel is correct. This WCJ had previously thought this involved the same injured worker, simply with different cases with different employers and representatives. However, it appears this case involves separate cases with separate injured workers who simply bear the same exact name. The matter appears to be have been set under one name, combining the various ADJs for the conference calendar on 6/12/25. It is worth pointing out that defendant's petition makes it appear that this point was clarified at the hearing when it was only truly clarified in their petition for removal. Representations during the hearing were only that they did not represent a particular defendant, a common enough occurrence when a single injured worker has multiple cases, not that these were entirely two separate injured workers. Contrary to defendant's disrespectful tone of "despite this" the WCJ directed the parties for second call, the reason for the second call was for the parties to investigate and clarify why there was such confusion, rather than just declaring they did not represent a particular defendant and wanted out. Additionally, defendant is correct that were informed to not email this WCJ directly without permission. The reason for this instruction is to prevent ex parte communications especially in cases with several cases.