On April 10, 2024, the WCAB issued an En Banc Order of Consolidation and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions of up to $2,500.00 against Susan Garrett in eight (8) instances where it appeared that she filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or where it appeared that such actions were indisputably without merit (up to $20,000.00 total).

It also issued a notice of intent to impose sanctions of up to $2,500.00 against Lance Garrett in eight (8) instances where it appeared that he filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or where it appeared that such actions were indisputably without merit (up to $20,000.00 total).

Lastly, it issued a notice of intent to award reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, associated with the petitions for reconsideration filed in each of these matters. It deferred the amount of such costs to the trial level.

Following the Notice of Intent Susan Garrett filed a verified response arguing that her decision to file petitions for reconsideration in lieu of petitions for removal was based upon non-frivolous arguments. She argued, without citation, that pleading for reconsideration in the alternative “has long been general pleading practice in various workers’ compensation community practice reference materials.”

Susan Garrett further argued that the maximum sanction was not proportional to the conduct committed. She describes the effect of her conduct as creating “inconvenient situations.” She argued that it was not her intent to delay proceedings of the Appeals Board, but instead it was unavoidable due to chronic health conditions experienced by her and by Lance Garrett. Alternatively, she argued that her non-appearances were due to trials being set on notice, which caused calendar conflicts.

The response of Lance Garrett essentially restated the arguments contained in the Response of Susan Garrett, often verbatim. Neither response addresses the issue of costs and/or attorney’s fees.

After a review of the record and the Responses, the En Banc WCAB panel made its final ruling in the consolidated cases of Alfredo Ledezma, et al. vs. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg.;State Compensation Insurance Fund, et al. (May 2024)

The WCAB sitting En Banc wrote: “Generally, there are two responses when faced with the possibility of imposition of sanctions: 1) a person can admit that the conduct was wrong, acknowledge the harm done, evidence an understanding of why the conduct was wrong, and assure the court that it will not happen again; or 2) a person can argue that the conduct was not in bad faith and/or frivolous.”

“The responses of both Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett argue that their conduct was not frivolous or in bad faith.”

“Instead, Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett’s responses trivialize the act of filing multiple frivolous petitions for reconsideration as an ‘inconvenience.’ However, their conduct here goes far beyond inconvenience. The filing of frivolous petitions for reconsideration significantly hampers the work of the Appeals Board. Each petition costs significant time and resources and delays the issuance of other decisions pending at the Appeals Board. More significantly, it delays a determination of applicant’s benefits in each of the cases at bar.”

After issuing a notice of intent on April 10, 2024, and having received and reviewed the responses of Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett, on May 16, 2024, the Appeals Board issued an En Banc Order imposing sanctions and costs in eight cases collectively of $20,000.00 against attorney Susan Garrett (CA BAR #195580) in eight (8) instances where she filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or where it appeared that such actions were indisputably without merit.

The Appeals Board issued a second order imposing costs and sanctions collectively of $20,000.00 against hearing representative Lance Garrett in eight (8) instances where he filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or where it appeared that such actions were indisputably without merit.

In the En Banc order imposing sanctions and costs, the Appeals Board found that filing a petition for reconsideration to halt trial level proceedings in order to obtain a de facto continuance is bad faith and/or frivolous conduct, which is sanctionable. The Appeals Board found that the responses of Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett did not warrant a reduction in sanctions as they failed to take responsibility for their conduct, acknowledge the seriousness of their conduct, and demonstrate genuine remorse.

The Appeals Board deferred the amount of reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs, and returned the matter to Presiding Judge Robert Rassp to conduct a hearing on that issue.