Deville: Repeated Filings and Prior Warnings Supported a Prefiling Order

A WCAB prefiling order changes how an unrepresented worker may ask the Board to act. In Deville v. The Boeing Company, Nos. ADJ1939621 and ADJ2269333 (WCAB Oct. 22, 2026), a panel upheld that restriction after examining a long record of repeated filings, unsuccessful judicial challenges and prior warnings. The decision turns on the documented course of litigation and the requirements of Rule 10430.

An established injury claim and years of further proceedings

The underlying litigation began well before the prefiling dispute. A 2005 decision found the worker’s thyroid cancer and restrictive airways disease industrially related and deferred other claimed conditions. Later proceedings involved further medical development and successive judicial assignments as judges retired or changed positions. The worker represented herself during much of that later litigation.

The adopted report describes repeated efforts to disqualify assigned judges, previously filed medical documents submitted again, and lengthy papers filed without the required permission. At the July 13, 2026 hearing, the report counted 1,166 documents in the ADJ2269333 electronic file. The significance was the conduct described alongside that volume: The Board had already rejected judicial-disqualification requests, and the worker had been told not to attach documents already in the file. Deville, incorporated judge’s report, PDF pages 3–7.

The finding followed warnings and a hearing

The employer had sought a vexatious-litigant finding in 2024. An October 21, 2025 order denying removal warned the worker about repeated unmeritorious filings and returned the vexatious-litigant issue for possible hearing. The assigned trial judge later filed a petition in June 2026, and the presiding judge heard the issue on July 13. The resulting August 18 order declared the worker vexatious and imposed a prefiling requirement.

The report also identified an admitted recording of a hearing without advance permission. It treated that incident within the larger history of compliance problems. On reconsideration, the worker challenged the process and raised medical-record arguments. The presiding judge explained why those arguments did not answer the filing-conduct issue and why further medical development remained under the trial judge’s control. The panel adopted that reasoning. Deville at 5–8.

Rule 10430 addresses repeated conduct and preserves a screening process

WCAB Rule 10430 identifies several grounds for a vexatious-litigant finding, including specified repeated relitigation, unmeritorious filings and bad-faith tactics by an unrepresented party. It requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. A prefiling order can require permission before that party files an application, declaration of readiness, petition or other request for Board action.

The rule also provides for conditional filing and review of a proposed request. The decisionmaker considers the request, the existing record and any additional documentation requested. A significant change in circumstances—such as genuinely new evidence or a change in law—can matter. That framework distinguishes a supported new request from another attempt to relitigate an issue already finally determined.

The Board also checked its decision deadline

The opinion separately addressed Labor Code section 5909’s 60-day clock. The judge’s report was served on September 1, but the case was transmitted to the Board on September 16. Because those events occurred on different dates, service of the report did not accurately notify the worker of transmission. The Board calculated the period from the actual transmission, with the weekend rule moving the deadline to November 16. Its October 22 decision was timely. Deville, Board opinion at 1–2.

The panel upheld the prefiling order

The Board allowed a supplemental petition, considered it with the reconsideration petition and report, and denied reconsideration. The August 18 prefiling order therefore remained in place. The panel’s October 22 order concerns that restriction; the adopted report separately explains the trial judge’s continuing role in developing the underlying medical record. Deville at 9.

This is a WCAB panel decision, rather than binding en banc precedent. For someone subject to an actual prefiling order, the practical starting point is its precise scope and the proposed new request. Our guide to requesting permission under a WCAB prefiling order explains that separate task.