Corleto v. Frisco Baking Co.: An Expedited Hearing Request Did Not Eliminate Calendar Discretion

Case Summary: Corleto v. Frisco Baking Co.

In Nixon Corleto v. Frisco Baking Co.; CompWest Insurance Company, Adjudication Numbers ADJ19889301, ADJ19889302, ADJ19889303, and ADJ19889304 (December 31, 2025), the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) held that a party's request for an expedited hearing does not eliminate a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) statutory authority to control their trial calendar. Confirming that Labor Code section 5700 grants judges discretion over hearing schedules, the Appeals Board affirmed an order vacating an expedited trial date and setting the matter for a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) when no party had properly filed exhibits before the expedited hearing, against the usual 20-day filing requirement and its express judge-ordered exception. Furthermore, the Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, emphasizing that self-inflicted delays caused by frivolous interlocutory filings cannot establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Factual Background and Procedural Posture

Applicant Nixon Corleto initiated claims across four adjudication files (ADJ19889301 through ADJ19889304) at the Los Angeles District Office of the WCAB, alleging industrial injuries sustained while employed by Frisco Baking Co., insured by CompWest Insurance Company. Applicant was represented by attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett of Garrett Law Group. Defendants were represented by Sapra & Navarra Law.

Applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) requesting an expedited hearing. On October 17, 2025, the presiding WCJ issued an order vacating the expedited trial date and setting the disputed issue for an MSC. The minutes of hearing confirmed that prior to the scheduled expedited hearing date, no party had properly filed proposed trial exhibits in compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10620.

Applicant filed a petition for removal from the October 17, 2025 order, contending that a WCJ lacks legal authority to control their courtroom calendar when an expedited hearing is requested. Applicant argued that under Labor Code section 5502, subdivision (b), the court is statutorily compelled to conduct an expedited trial regardless of circumstances once an expedited DOR is filed. Defendants did not file an answer to the petition. The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) analyzing the merits of applicant's contention, recommending that removal be denied, and suggesting that the Appeals Board consider sanctions for bad-faith delay. On December 31, 2025, the Appeals Board panel—comprising Commissioner Craig L. Snellings, Chair Katherine A. Zalewski, and Deputy Commissioner Anne Schmitz—issued its opinion denying removal.

Legal Issues Presented

The Appeals Board addressed three central legal questions:

1. Whether filing a Declaration of Readiness for an expedited hearing endows a party with a unilateral statutory right to proceed directly to trial, divesting a WCJ of courtroom calendar control.
2. Whether a WCJ abuses judicial discretion under Labor Code section 5700 by vacating an expedited trial date and setting an MSC when parties fail to file proposed exhibits 20 days prior to trial under WCAB Rule 10620.
3. Whether self-caused delay resulting from multiple interlocutory removal petitions constitutes substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying removal under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10955, subdivision (a).

The Board’s Reasoning

The Appeals Board rejected applicant's arguments and denied removal based on three core statutory and regulatory principles:

1. Standard for Extraordinary Relief via Removal

The Board applied the extraordinary-remedy standard: The petitioner must show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is denied and that reconsideration after a final adverse decision would not be adequate. It found neither showing persuasive in this record. Corleto, slip op. at 1–2.

2. Judicial Calendar Control Under Labor Code Section 5700

The Board directly contradicted applicant's claim that Labor Code section 5502 creates an absolute right to proceed to trial on demand. The panel noted that no statutory provision confers a unilateral right to trial upon filing a DOR. Instead, Labor Code section 5700 explicitly establishes broad judicial discretion: "The hearing on the application may be adjourned from time to time and from place to place in the discretion of the appeals board or the workers' compensation judge holding the hearing." While the Board acknowledged that an improper refusal to hold hearings could constitute an abuse of discretion in another case, no abuse occurred where the trial judge managed the calendar to ensure proper case preparation. Corleto, slip op. at 2.

3. Mandatory Exhibit Pre-Filing Under Rule 10620

The record confirmed that no party had properly filed proposed exhibits prior to the expedited trial date. Under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10620, any document offered into evidence at trial must be filed with the WCAB at least 20 days prior to trial unless otherwise ordered. Because the trial judge had no properly filed exhibits to review, the WCJ acted well within judicial discretion to vacate trial and reset the matter for an MSC. Corleto, slip op. at 2.

4. Self-Caused Harm and Admonition Regarding Frivolous Filings

Addressing the claim of harm caused by trial delay, the Board observed that the delay in proceeding to trial was actively caused by applicant's own counsel filing multiple petitions for removal. Self-inflicted delay does not constitute irreparable harm. The Board explicitly admonished applicant's attorney, Susan Garrett, and hearing representative, Lance Garrett, warning that filing frivolous or bad-faith petitions could warrant sanctions and costs under Labor Code section 5813 if such conduct persisted. Corleto, slip op. at 2.

Limitations and Practical Consequences

The Board's decision in Corleto carries key legal limitations and practical record consequences for California workers' compensation litigation:

• Persuasive Panel Precedent: As a WCAB panel decision, Corleto is persuasive authority rather than binding en banc precedent. The analysis rests on section 5700 and the particular unprepared record.
• Distinguishing Calendar Discretion from Unreasonable Delay: The panel explicitly noted that while WCJs retain calendar discretion, an arbitrary or unjustified refusal to proceed to trial could constitute an abuse of discretion in a different factual context.
• Strict Enforcement of Exhibit Deadlines: Practitioners cannot rely on expedited statutory priority to bypass Rule 10620. The rule ordinarily requires filing at least 20 days before trial unless otherwise ordered. The panel found no abuse on this record; it did not establish that every late filing requires an MSC.
• Sanctions Exposure for Tactical Interlocutory Appeals: Filing repeated removal petitions to challenge routine scheduling orders may undermine a claim of irreparable harm when the filings themselves cause delay. The Board warned about sanctions for continued frivolous or bad-faith conduct without imposing any here.

Related Resources

For guidance on preparing evidentiary submissions for expedited proceedings, see our practice insight on Preparing for a WCAB Expedited Hearing. For broader background on WCAB pretrial procedure and sanctions rules, review our articles on California WCAB Pretrial Evidence Rules, Settlement Approval and Due Process in Gaines. You can also view the Official Panel Decision (PDF).