The Appeals Board’s en banc Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration in Tyson Perez v. Chicago Dogs, et al. (ADJ16597333, Aug. 12 & 14, 2025) does far more than press “pause” on a cumulative-trauma case involving a former professional pitcher. By squarely interpreting WCAB Rule 10817(a), the panel charts a state-wide blueprint for when and how witnesses may testify electronically in California workers’ compensation trials.
Snapshot of the Procedural Posture
- Underlying dispute: Whether California has personal jurisdiction over the Illinois-based Chicago Dogs for Perez’s CT claim covering 2011-2022.
- Trial ruling (May 13, 2025): WCJ found jurisdiction after excluding an affidavit from Chicago Dogs’ COO Trish Zuro and barring her phone testimony because no pre-hearing petition for remote testimony was filed.
- Petition for Reconsideration: Chicago Dogs argued the evidentiary bar violated due process and produced an incomplete record on “minimum contacts.”
- En banc action (Aug. 12, 2025): Board granted reconsideration and deferred a final merits decision, ordering further review and record development.
- Clerical corrections (Aug. 14, 2025): Minor rule-number fixes; substance unchanged.
Five Core Holdings
- Exclusive Rule-Making Authority
Only the WCAB sets procedure (§§5307, 5500.3, 5708); local “house rules” are impermissible. - Due Process Mandate
Parties have a constitutional right to call, cross-examine, and rebut witnesses. A denial that prevents a fair hearing is reversible per se. - Liberal Pleading Philosophy
Technical defects do not trump merits. Pleadings may be amended to conform to proof, and informal requests can satisfy rule requirements. - Interpretation of Rule 10817(a)
- A verbal, on-the-record request at the start of trial—with an opportunity for objections—meets the “petition showing good cause” requirement for electronic testimony.
- Good cause generally exists when a material witness cannot appear in person and credibility can still be tested remotely.
- Scope of Reconsideration
Granting reconsideration “re-opens the whole record” and empowers the Board to issue new findings on any issue, not just those raised in the petition.
Deeper Dive: Why the Board Embraced Remote Testimony
- Statutory Flexibility
Sections 5708-5709 instruct WCAB judges to resolve cases “in the manner…best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties,” expressly freeing them from strict evidence codes. Denying testimony for a procedural misstep contradicts that directive. - Consistency with Modern Practice
Post-pandemic litigation norms have normalized Zoom and telephone testimony in nearly every forum. The Board’s reading of Rule 10817 aligns workers’ comp procedure with prevailing statewide practice, enhancing access and efficiency. - Record Preservation
The panel highlighted its duty to develop rather than truncate the record. Allowing Zuro to testify remotely eliminates a potential appellate vulnerability and ensures any ultimate jurisdictional decision rests on a complete factual foundation. - Balancing Credibility Concerns
Remote appearance is not automatic. Parties retain the right to object, and WCJs may still require in-person testimony where demeanor is critical. But the default posture now favors admission unless an articulated, case-specific reason exists to exclude.
Practice Pointers for Defense Counsel
- Request Early—But Do Not Panic if You Forget. Submit a written petition under Rule 10510 when possible yet know that a clear oral request at trial can still suffice.
- Document Unavailability. Offer concrete reasons (distance, cost, health, scheduling) to bolster “good cause.”
- Prepare Cross-Examination Logistics. Confirm phone or video platform details, exhibits delivery, and oath administration in advance to avoid day-of glitches.
- Object Promptly. If opposing counsel surprises you with a remote witness, timely objection preserves appellate arguments.
- Monitor the Record. The Board’s decision underscores that incomplete records invite remand; proactively move to reopen evidence if critical facts emerge late.
Yrulegui & Roberts — Focused Defense, Informed Strategy
Our Fresno-based firm tracks every en banc ruling so our clients do not have to. From jurisdictional challenges to discovery tactics, Yrulegui & Roberts delivers agile, cost-effective workers’ compensation defense across California. Have questions about remote testimony or cumulative-trauma exposure? Reach out to our team for strategic guidance grounded in the latest precedent.
Disclaimer: This post is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Yrulegui & Roberts. Every claim is fact-specific; consult qualified counsel for advice tailored to your situation.
