Venue is usually one of the earliest issues that needs to be assessed and addressed at the outset of workers’ compensation claims.
In most instances, an applicant’s attorney files a claim in a county where his or her office is located, and where he/she usually conducts business, and has familiarity with the district office.
At times, an applicant’s attorney might file an application in a district office where his or her client is located, but that is geographically-distant from the attorney’s office. This may be due to consideration of convenience for the client to attend potential hearings on the matter. (Given the rules enacted since the pandemic, and the current system of remote attendance, the geographical consideration appears to be only pertinent to trial and expedited hearings where an in-person appearance is required).
In those instances where the applicant’s counsel selects a district office closer to his or her office, the issue of venue could potentially be problematic for the defense side. This would depend on the nature of the case, and whether the location of the venue would present an inconvenience for potential employer witnesses due to lack of geographic proximity to the selected district office.
Given above, it is crucial to make an early and timely assessments of the venue issue upon receipt of the application documents.
LABOR CODE 5501.5
California Labor Code 5501.5 provides pertinent guidelines for challenging the selected venue.
This statute allows the applicant to file in the county where the injured employee resides on the date of the filing. The alternative option is to file in the county where the injury allegedly
occurred, or in a cumulative trauma case, where the last alleged injurious exposure occurred.
In represented cases, it also allows the application be filed in the county where the applicant’s counsel maintains his or her principal place of business.
The Labor Code is rather flexible if the selected county has more than one district office, and the application can be filed at any district office within that county if it meets the criteria specified above.
In the instances where applicant attorney’s place of business is in a separate county from where the applicant’s residence is located, and where the injury has occurred, the employer has an
opportunity to object, but it should do so timely.
The Labor Code allows the employer 30 days from receipt of the information request form to object to the selected venue site. The code of regulations provides further clarity by stating that an objection can be filed within 30 days after notice of the adjudication case number and venue is received by the employer or insurance carrier. This requires a statement under the penalty of perjury regarding the date when the notice of the adjudication case number and venue was received. Then, the venue shall be either in the county where the injury allegedly occurred, or in the county where the applicant resides on the date of the filing.
WHAT IF NO WCAB EXISTS IN THE COUNTY WHERE VENUE SHOULD BE?
There can also be instances where there are no appeals board offices in the county where the venue is permitted to be filed. Labor Code section 5501.5 (d) allows the application to be filed at
the appeals board office nearest to the injured employee on the date of the filing, or the nearest place where the injury allegedly occurred. It can also be filed where the applicant’s attorney
maintains his or her principal place of business, unless the defendant makes a timely objection based on the previously-mentioned criteria.
TIMING IS EVERYTHING
Defendants have 30 days to object to an initial applicant’s venue selection. The time-sensitive nature of the venue issue requires a diligent early review of the file in order to avoid being held captive in a venue which may not be optimum from the defense perspective, including possible unfamiliarity of defense counsel with the selected district office.
Should the employer fail to make a timely objection within 30 days, there may still be a pathway to salvage the issue.
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE BASED ON “GOOD CAUSE”
Labor Code section 5501.6 allows filing a petition for change of venue, irrespective of the time deadlines. However, this would require a party to show “good cause” for transfer of venue. This
section requires that the petitioner elaborate and provide specific reasons for change of venue. If a good cause is asserted based on convenience of witnesses, this section requires that the
petitioner provide clear details including the names and addresses of witnesses. In addition, the substance of the witnesses’ testimony needs to be specifically set forth in the request for change of venue.
The California Code of Regulations allows the other party (usually the applicant’s attorney) to object to a petition for change of venue within 10 days of the filing of the petition.
THE PRESIDING JUDGE MAKES THE CALL
The decision as to whether grant the petition for change of venue will be addressed by the district office’s presiding judge. The presiding judge will have the discretion to grant or deny the petition for change of venue, or alternatively serve a notice of status conference within 30 days of the filing of the petition.
CONCLUSION
Given the possible complications and costs of litigating the venue issue, it is good practice to assess the venue issue as early as possible. It could potentially save time and effort in preparing a petition and having the task of persuading and providing a good cause for transfer of venue.
The question of venue could be crucial throughout the life of the case, where defendant’s familiarity with the district office could provide valuable tactical advantages during the litigation
process.
Shahram “Sean” B. Shabestari is an Equity Partner at Bradford & Barthel’s Los Angeles location. If you have questions about workers’ compensation defense issues, feel free to contact Sean at sshabestari@bradfordbarthel.com or (310) 981-5004.
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.