ADJ9984568 — California WCAB decision

ADJ9984568 · September 26, 2025

Petition for removal granted; the August 29, 2024 order requiring an in-person appearance of an adjuster or representative is rescinded and substituted with an order allowing electronic appearance with settlement authority.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Oakland

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal from the order requiring an in-person appearance of an adjuster or representative at trial, filed by defendant, reviewed by the WCAB panel.

Read the official decision →

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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailed

The Appeals Board found that the order requiring in-person appearance was legally incorrect and that electronic appearance with settlement authority satisfies the regulation, thus granting removal to avoid irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record, we will grant removal and as our Decision After Removal we will rescind the August 29, 2024 order for an adjuster or representative to appear, and substitute a new order that defendant have someone with settlement authority available electronically pursuant to WCAB Rule 10752(b).

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5

Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted.

The Board applied this standard to determine that the in-person appearance order was legally incorrect and would cause irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70

WCAB Rule 10752(b)

Each required party shall have a person available with settlement authority at all hearings, who may appear electronically.

The Board interpreted this rule to allow electronic appearance with settlement authority instead of in-person appearance.

From the decision · page 2Defendant challenges the order of the WCJ to have an adjuster or representative present at trial in-person. The WCJ expressly stated in the order "No remote[.]" (Minutes of Hearing, August 29, 2024.) Recently, the Appeals Board issued an en banc decision in Perez v. Chicago Dogs, 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 29. In that decision, the Appeals Board made clear that "the due process right to a fair hearing and a determination based on the merits is good cause to allow the electronic testimony of the witness." (Id. at * 17, (emphasis in original).) Here, the purpose of the adjuster's presence is not as a witness, but instead to ensure that defendant complies with WCAB Rule 10752(b), which states: "Each required party shall have a person available with settlement authority at all hearings." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10752(b).) If a testifying party may appear remotely, and in the interests of providing due process to all parties, it would logically flow that a non-testifying party may also appear remotely upon request.

ADJ9984568 · September 26, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

About this page