The Division of Workers’ Compensation has posted the 2015 ethics advisory committee’s annual report on its website. The ethics advisory committee is a state committee independent from the DWC that is charged with reviewing and monitoring complaints of misconduct filed against workers’ compensation administrative law judges.
The EAC is composed of nine members, each appointed by the administrative director of the DWC for a term of four years. The composition of the EAC reflects the constituencies within the California workers’ compensation community. The EAC meets four times a year at the DWC headquarters. Although EAC meetings are open to the public, the Committee meets in executive session when it engages in the review and discussion of actual complaints, and that portion of the proceedings is closed to the public.The ethics advisory committee is required to make a public report each year summarizing activities in the previous calendar year. Anyone may file a complaint with the EAC. Complaints may be submitted anonymously, but all complaints must be presented in writing.
The 2015 annual report may be viewed or downloaded at the DWC website. In this report, the EAC considered a total of 38 of the 44 new complaints it received in calendar year 2015, in addition to 6 complaints pending from 2014. The complaints set forth a wide variety of grievances. A large proportion of the complaints alleged legal error not involving judicial misconduct or expressed dissatisfaction with a judge’s decision. The majority of complaints were filed by unrepresented employees.
The EAC recommended that “further action be taken” in three lien cases. (cases 9, 10 and 26 in the report) All three complained about a lack of courtesy, dignity, and rudeness on the part of the WCJ, and threatening and intimidating behavior. Cases 9, and 10 were the same case reported by two people. The dispute involved allegations that the WCJ called a doctor’s office and ordered that the doctor appear at a hearing that day. The doctor responded that he was observing a three day religious holiday and could not appear before that was over. The WCJ allegedly responded “I don’t believe you.” The second complaint was filed by a witness at that hearing. “The complainant alleged that the judge appeared smug, negative, and downright abusive to all the parties.” In both cases the EAC “recommended to the CJ that further action be taken and recommended that this matter be referred to personnel.”
In case 26, he complainant, a lien claimant, alleged that the judge displayed rude, abusive, undignified, ill-mannered, intemperate, disrespectful, and discourteous conduct by yelling at the complainant and imposing sanctions for not producing the lien claimant representative at the hearing, even though no subpoena had been served. The complainant filed a Petition for Reconsideration. The Petition was granted for further review. The complainant also attached three panel decisions in different cases that found that the judge engaged in abuse of discretion. Following its review of the investigation, the committee recommended further action and referred this matter to personnel.