A petition for reconsideration is an inappropriate remedy to a judge’s order taking a matter off-calendar, according to a new significant panel decision from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.
The WCAB warned that inappropriate petitions for reconsideration are sanctionable in its latest significant panel decision, Latrice Reed v. County of San Bernardino, 89 Cal. Comp. Cases, 11/5/24. Other key elements of the decision are clarification that a judge’s order taking a case off-calendar (OTOC) is not a final order, and that a petition for removal is the appropriate remedy for a party disagreeing with an OTOC.
THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE
The case found its way on calendar after applicant’s attorney filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) to a mandatory settlement conference (MSC). The applicant’s attorney had filed the DOR because he was unhappy with an order for defendant to pay $840 in LC 5710 fees. Instead, the applicant’s attorney felt that $892.50 was warranted.
At the MSC, the workers’ compensation judge disagreed that the matter should be set for trial over $52.50, and issued an order taking the matter off-calendar.
THE RECON
Applicant’s attorney filed a petition for reconsideration, arguing that the case should not have been taken OTOC.
At the Appeals Board level, the commissioners cited their en banc decision in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg., (2024) 89 Cal. Comp Cases 462, 475 for the proposition that OTOCs are not final orders and that “seeking reconsideration of non-final orders is sanctionable.” The WCAB noted that in the Reed case, applicant’s attorney had erroneously filed a petition for reconsideration instead of a petition for removal. In other words, the commissioners determined that the filing of the petition for reconsideration was not a deliberate act for an improper purpose, hinting at prior decisions where petitions for reconsideration were filed solely for the purpose of delaying proceedings.
“Thus, for the purpose of this decision, we will assume that the filing of a petition for reconsideration rather than one for removal was merely a careless error,” the WCAB wrote. “Accordingly, we do not take up the issue of sanctions at this time.”
The commissioners admonished the applicant’s attorney, and clarified that applicant’s attorney should have filed a petition for removal instead. They warned the applicant’s attorney that if he files an inappropriate petition for reconsideration again in the future, that could be sanctionable under LC 5813, WCAB Rule 10841, and CCR 10421.
The WCAB went on to treat applicant’s attorney’s petition as a petition for removal, and analyzed whether trial was appropriate.
“Here, Mr. Ramirez seeks a trial over the amount of $52.50,” the WCAB wrote. “We agree with the WCJ that under these circumstances, judicial economy would be best served by trying such a dispute along with the case in chief as part of a single trial. Indeed, as WCAB 10787(a) makes abundantly clear, parties must submit all matters at issue at a single trial.”
In other words, the commissioners do not want to see trials over singular, smaller issues such as a dispute over LC 5710 fees. Rather, they prefer that those issues be grouped together with all of the other triable issues in a case.
Judges may bifurcate singular issues and set those issues for trial when they feel that is appropriate, but in this case, the trial judge clearly felt that bifurcation was inappropriate. The WCAB agreed with the trial judge, determined that removal was not warranted, and rejected applicant’s attorney’s petition.
ANALYSIS FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT
Louis Larres, an equity partner who heads Bradford and Barthel’s Appellate Department, said that the decision breaks from a prior pattern of decisions where the WCAB would not punish parties for filing the wrong type of petition.
“I think this represents an interesting and much-needed break from the trend the Board has demonstrated for some time now in dealing with petitions for removal and reconsideration,” he said. “Oftentimes the Board responds to a petition for removal with an Opinion and Order on Reconsideration. In doing so, the Board usually points to a finding of the trial judge that usually isn’t representative of the issues adjudicated at trial, such as causation or employment. These are issues the trial judge usually recites in the findings based on the stipulations of the parties.”
Larres noted that on other occasions, the WCAB has applied “the removal standard” when the issue being challenged is a non-final decision.
“It is not entirely clear to me why the Board takes this approach, aside from perhaps a reluctance to penalize a party for not knowing the difference between a final and non-final order when the issue is a bit murky,” he said. “In the case of an order taking off calendar, it should be clear to all, and now even more so, that such an order is non-final and subject to removal.”
TAKEAWAYS
There are several key takeaways workers’ compensation practitioners can learn from the significant panel decision in Reed, which are:
- An OTOC is not a final order.
- If one is disputing an OTOC, a petition for removal is the appropriate remedy.
- If one files a petition for reconsideration in response to an OTOC, that is sanctionable.
- The WCAB does not want trials set over smaller issues, such as disputes over $52.50. Instead, the WCAB prefers trials to be on all issues, so that larger and smaller issues can be resolved simultaneously.
The decision serves the principal of judicial economy, which is the concept that parties should not waste the court’s time and resources. The principle exists to make the courts operate more efficiently, and to avoid bogging down the courts with countless trials over smaller, singular issues.
Going forward, parties should take care to determine whether they order they are disputing is a final order, or an interlocutory order. Those challenging a final order should file petitions for reconsideration. But if the order in dispute is an interlocutory order, then the objecting party’s remedy is a petition for removal.
Got a question about workers’ compensation defense issues? Feel free to contact John P. Kamin or Louis A. Larres. Mr. Kamin is a workers’ compensation defense attorney and equity partner at Bradford & Barthel’s Woodland Hills location, where he monitors the recent legislative affairs as the firm’s Director of the Editorial Board. Mr. Kamin previously worked as a journalist for WorkCompCentral, where he reported on work-related injuries in all 50 states. Please feel free to contact John at jkamin@bradfordbarthel.com or at (818) 654-0411.
Louis A. Larres is an equity partner and area managing attorney at Bradford and Barthel’s Fresno office, and the director of the firm’s Appellate Division. Please feel free to contact Louis at llarres@bradfordbarthel.com or at (559) 221-6500.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.