WCAB Says Requests for Electronic Witness Testimony Should Be Heard on the Merits

Perez v. Chicago Dogs arose from a professional baseball cumulative-trauma claim and a disputed request to present a team witness remotely.

Read the WCAB en banc order.

A Baseball Claim and a California Jurisdiction Dispute

Tyson Perez alleged cumulative injury during a professional baseball career that included employment with the Houston Astros and Chicago Dogs. The WCJ found California personal jurisdiction over the Chicago Dogs based in part on recruitment contacts with Perez while he was in California.

The team sought to rebut those contacts through testimony from its chief operating officer. The WCJ excluded a written statement and declined to allow telephone testimony because a formal prehearing petition for electronic testimony had not been filed.

WCAB Rule 10817 and the Request for Remote Testimony

WCAB Rule 10817 provides for a petition showing good cause when a witness intends to testify electronically. The en banc Board emphasized that workers’ compensation pleadings are liberally construed and that claims should be decided on substance rather than technical labels.

Its preliminary conclusion was that an on-the-record request at the beginning of the hearing, with an opportunity for other parties to respond, may satisfy the petition requirement. When a witness cannot appear personally, due process and the right to a fair hearing may supply good cause for electronic testimony.

Due Process Requires a Meaningful Opportunity to Present Evidence

A fair WCAB hearing includes the ability to call and cross-examine witnesses, inspect exhibits, and offer rebuttal evidence. The Board explained that a request for electronic testimony should not be denied without an opportunity to be heard and an adequate record for review.

This does not mean every remote-testimony request must be granted. Reliability, notice, prejudice, technology, and the circumstances of the witness still matter. But a procedural defect should not automatically prevent consideration of material evidence.

The Board Acted Within the Amended Reconsideration Period

The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on June 13, 2025. Under amended Labor Code section 5909, the 60-day period ran from transmission, and the August 12 order was timely. A clerical correction followed on August 14.

What Perez Did Not Decide

The Board did not finally determine whether California has personal jurisdiction over the Chicago Dogs. It reopened the matter for further review and expressly stated that its order was not a final decision on the merits.

Practical Lessons for WCAB Hearings

• Identify remote witnesses on the pretrial conference statement.
• File a written petition under Rule 10817 before hearing whenever possible.
• Explain why personal attendance is impracticable and how examination will remain fair.
• Renew the request on the record and permit opposing parties to respond.
• Do not describe a grant-for-study order as a final jurisdictional victory.