A Major Win for Siegel, Moreno & Stettler! A significant victory in the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One FINDINGS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE (APPLICANT) vs. ; (Permissibly self-insured, DEFENDANTS) Attorney for Defendants: Steven M. Siegel The claims by the Applicant alleged back in 1992, the employer arranged mammograms for all the employees. Applicant claimed to have had one of the mammograms and subsequently learned that she had damage to her breast implants. The case was denied and litigation involved the Applicant’s deposition as well as a number of hearings at the WCAB. The Applicant claimed a number of conspiracy theories including Judges, prior Attorneys, and the present Defense Counsel. Some of the theories included involvement with one of the Judge’s brother and the shooting in Las Vegas, references to Nazis and World War II, involvement of the CIA, and other novel ideas. The Writ was as a result of Defendant’s filing a Motion to Dismiss the Application and determine the Applicant to be a Vexatious Litigant pursuant to 8 CCR 10430(a). A Vexatious Litigant means: A party who, while acting in propria persona in proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, repeatedly relitigates, or attempts to relitigate, an issue of law or fact that has been finally determined against that party by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or by an appellate court; A party who, while acting in propria persona in proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings or other papers, repeatedly conducts or attempts to conduct unnecessary discovery, or repeatedly engages in other tactics that are in bad faith, are frivolous or are solely intended to cause harassment or unnecessary delay; or A party who has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction(s) or occurrence(s) that are the subject, in whole or in substantial part, of the party’s workers’ compensation case. Under subsection (b), a party can be declared a Vexatious Litigant by Petition of a party, upon the Motion of any Workers’ Compensation Judge or the Appeals Board, the Presiding Workers’ Compensation Judge of any District Office having venue or the Appeals Board. This was accomplished in this case, with the Applicant being declared a Vexatious Litigant. As a result of being declared a Vexatious Litigant, subsection (d) states that Presiding Workers’ Compensation Judge or Appeals Board may enter a “prefiling” Order, in other words an Order which prohibits the Vexatious Litigation from filing in propria any Application, Declaration of Readiness, or a Petition without first obtaining leave of the Presiding Workers’ Compensation Judge for the Appeals Board. Under subsection (e), request from said Vexatious Litigant “conditionally filed” pending review by the Presiding Judge (in this case Honorable Clifford Levy), or the Appeals Board could determine if subsection (a) has been violated. If said request does not violate subsection (a), then it will be deemed to have been “properly filed”. Presiding Judge or Appeals Board may consider “whether there has been a significant change in circumstances (such as new or newly discovered evidence or a change in law) among other factors that might materially affect an issue of fact or law that was previously finally determined against the vexatious litigant. CASE BACKGROUND The Applicant had been determined a “Vexatious Litigant” considered the “prefiling review” of the Applicant’s conditional filing to determine whether the request would be accepted for filing. The main issue was whether or not the Applicant filed her Petition for Reconsideration timely. The Defendants Petitioned the Court to Dismiss the Application on the basis that the Applicant was a Vexatious Litigant. The Order Dismissing the Application was dated April 6, 2023, and the 25 day limit to file the Petition fell on May 1, 2023. There was also an issue as to whether or not prefiling review was conditional as a result of the Board accepting the Petition. It was at best confusing to determine what the Applicant intended to file. She did the following: 1). A letter dated April 28, 2023, received by the Board on May 1, 2023, which stated “please process my Reconsideration for Change of Venue”, but there were no attachments; 2). A proof of service for a “Motion for Disqualification” showed a date of May 1, 2023, but there was no such document filed with the Board. (3) Petition for Reconsideration with proof of service by mail May 1, 2023 with the Petition stamped by the Board as received on May 3, 2023. Defendants and their Response to the Petition for Reconsideration claimed the Petition filed by the Applicant was not timely. Other issues were also raised but the Judge determined that the Petition was not timely. The Appeals Board accepted the Petition and found the following: The Petition, even though it was untimely to address the issues. Judge Levy held that the Petition for Reconsideration as claimed by Defendants was not timely. Final decision. WCAB APPEALS BOARD In the Appeals Board’s decision, they noted “material change in circumstances related to the dismissal of the Application for Adjudication of Claim. Of interest, is the Appeals Board never said what that was under the circumstances, nevertheless accepted the Petition for filing. The Board summarily dismissed the Petition as untimely and noted the Petition would have been denied on the merits per the Judge’s reports (Appeals Board considering the April 20, 2023, letter “conditional filing” that were then rejected for filing, noting it made no reference to the dismissed Order. Of interest, the Appeals Board noted some of the unfounded allegations. It really was unclear as to what the new and relevant facts were in this case even though the Petition was considered by the Appeals Board to be a material change in circumstances such that it was not deemed in violation of previous litigants prefiling Order. Defendants raised the issue of her requesting a
