Bering: A Credibility Dispute Did Not Stop a Remote Trial

A dispute about a worker’s credibility does not, by itself, establish a right to stop a remote workers’ compensation trial. In Julia Bering v. Health Link, No. ADJ17258260 (WCAB Jan. 9, 2026), the Appeals Board denied an insurer’s request for removal from an order setting a remote trial. It left the trial judge able to assess credibility and decide whether in-person testimony became necessary.

Status: This is a nonbinding WCAB panel decision. It resolves an interim hearing-format challenge, not the worker’s entitlement to additional qualified medical evaluators.

The objection concerned credibility at a hearing that had not occurred

The defendant argued that a remote trial was inappropriate because the applicant’s credibility mattered to a dispute over additional panel QMEs. The judge recommended denying removal. The Board agreed that the defendant had not shown the exceptional harm required to interrupt the proceedings. The filed opinion describes the challenged setting order as October 21, 2025 in its opening, but identifies May 19, 2025 in its final order. That inconsistency does not change the January 9 disposition; the opinion does not explain it.

Removal requires more than disagreement with the trial setting

Under WCAB Rule 10955, the petitioner must show significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and explain why reconsideration after an adverse final decision would be inadequate. The Board found neither showing persuasive on this record. See Bering, pages 1–2.

The distinction matters: A party may have a genuine concern about how a witness can be examined without proving that the case must stop before testimony begins. An immediate removal petition and a later challenge to a final decision have different purposes.

The trial judge could address a concrete problem during testimony

The Board emphasized that the parties could present evidence and raise relevant issues at the remote trial. The judge could evaluate credibility and consider a continuance for in-person testimony. The decision therefore did not establish that remote testimony is always sufficient, or that a request for an in-person hearing can never succeed.

The opinion also rejected using a hearing-format objection to impose unnecessary travel expense on opposing counsel. That discussion should not be read as erasing legitimate evidentiary concerns; the Board expressly recognized the credibility objection while rejecting the requested interruption.

What a party should take from this decision

Identify the actual difficulty the proposed format creates: For example, whether a particular exhibit can be presented and examined reliably, or a witness can participate effectively. Explain the effect on the disputed testimony and the available solution. A general assertion that credibility matters leaves the judge without that connection.

Bering does not decide whether this worker should receive another QME or how any resulting medical report should be weighed. For help with the underlying claim, see our California workers’ compensation practice. Bring the setting order and the specific hearing concern so counsel can assess both the practical remedy and the correct review procedure.