Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10833; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473
Any decision of the WCJ granting or denying a petition to allow an electronic appearance or electronic testimony must be reduced to writing and be based upon an adequate record, after providing the parties an opportunity to be heard, in the same manner as any other order touching on the parties' due process rights.
The WCJ's denial of the petition was not based on an adequate record and did not provide a sufficient explanation, violating due process.
From the decision · page 2Preliminarily, we reiterate that any decision of the WCJ granting or denying a petition to
allow an electronic appearance or electronic testimony must be reduced to writing and be based
upon an adequate record, after providing the parties an opportunity to be heard, in the same manner
as any other order touching on the parties' due process rights. (Lab. Code § 5313; Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 10833; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473,
citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases
350, 351].)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10816; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10510
A party intending to appear electronically may seek permission to appear electronically at a hearing pursuant to WCAB Rule 10816, by filing a petition pursuant to WCAB Rule 10510.
Defendant filed a petition under these rules to allow remote testimony.
From the decision · page 2A party intending to appear electronically3 may seek permission to appear electronically at
a hearing pursuant to WCAB Rule 10816, by filing a petition pursuant to WCAB Rule 10510.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10835
A stipulation between the parties constitutes good cause and obviates the need to provide an opportunity to be heard or to create a record.
The parties stipulated to remote testimony, which should have been accepted as good cause.
County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114
Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements.
The WCJ was required to show good cause to reject the parties' stipulation but failed to do so.
From the decision · page 3Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are
given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]
(Weatherall).) As defined in Weatherall, "A stipulation is `An agreement between opposing
counsel... ordinarily entered into for the purpose of avoiding delay, trouble, or expense in the
conduct of the action,' (Ballentine, Law Dict. (1930) p. 1235, col. 2) and serves `to obviate need
for proof or to narrow range of litigable issues' (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 1415, col. 1)
in a legal proceeding." (Weatherall, supra, at p. 1119.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 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
The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues.
The WCAB found that denial of remote testimony despite stipulation caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to defendant, justifying removal.
From the decision · page 4Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cortez) (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases
155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kleemann) (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, § 10955(a); 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, § 10955(a).)