Have you seen the very recent panel decision in the case of Shuey v. City of Redlands Police Department?

Gregory Grinberg

An application was filed in February designating Marina del Rey as the venue.  Defendant mailed an objection about three weeks later, but the EAMS system does not show a change of venue until August.

Defendant presented evidence from the U.S. Postal Service that the objection to venue under Labor Code Section 5501.5 was delivered within 30 days of service of the notice of the application. The workers' compensation judge denied the petition and recommended that removal be denied on the basis that the petition was untimely.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and sent the matter back down for the trial level to consider the evidence of the USPS delivery proof. However, the matter would be heard further at the same venue defendant was seeking to move out of, at least for now. In any case, I’m sure both the parties and the WCJ will consult 8 CCR 10615(b), which reflects that a “document is deemed filed when received.”

I was certainly around when EAMS was just coming online and remember well the grumbling and complaints about the system. Well, it’s been more than a decade since then and EAMS is still here and I think we’ve all gotten used to it. More than that, and as a credit to Kevin Star, who oversaw its implementation, EAMS allows us to not only e-file documents, but receive a time-stamp of receipt by the WCAB. 

If you are not currently an e-file, I cannot urge you enough to become one, if for no other reason than to avoid such a situation. 

In the meantime, this case serves as a friendly reminder for all of us: If the venue selected is not (1) the county where the applicant resides on the date of filing or (2) the county where the alleged injury occurred, defendant has 30 days from receipt “of the information request form” to object to the venue and have it transferred to option 1 or 2.

Practicing in Northern California, I can report that we regularly receive applications for injuries sustained in Northern California by employees living in Northern California, but with venue selected for Southern California. This puts defendants at a significant and, dare I say it, unfair disadvantage, and it is probably a good practice to have an objection letter ready to knock these out as they come in.

Gregory Grinberg is managing partner of Gale, Sutow & Associates’ S.F. Bay South office and a certified specialist in workers’ compensation law. This post is reprinted with permission from Grinberg’s WCDefenseCA blog.