The Division of Workers’ Compensation has posted the 2014 ethics advisory committee’s (EAC) annual report on its website. The committee is a state committee independent of the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The EAC is charged with reviewing and monitoring complaints of misconduct filed against workers’ compensation administrative law judges (WCALJs, or judges). The committee is required to make a public report each year summarizing activities in the previous calendar year. The 2014 annual report may be viewed or downloaded at the DWC website.
As civil servants, the WCALJs are not subject to review by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the agency which is responsible for investigating misconduct complaints directed at judges serving on the Supreme, Superior and Appellate courts. The EAC’s authority and duties are set forth in the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 9722 through 9723.
Any person may file a complaint with the EAC. Complaints must be presented in writing and the EAC will accept anonymous complaints. The EAC considered a total of 39 of the 45 new complaints it received in the calendar year of 2014, in addition to 3 complaints pending from 2013. The complaints set forth a wide variety of grievances. A substantial portion of the complaints alleged legal error not involving judicial misconduct or expressed dissatisfaction with a judge’s decision.
An illustrative case is item eleven in the report which pertains to a defense attorneys complaint about a WCJ who “alleged that the judge harassed the parties and exceeded the scope of the judge’s authority.” In this case the judge refused to approve a Compromise and Release with the represented applicant. The “harassment” allegedly occurred when “the judge wrote to the parties a total of five letters regarding the status of the case. The parties were not on calendar, however, the judge continued to write. Complainant complained that on the judge’s own motion, the judge set a status conference for March of 2014 as parties did not respond to the judge’s letters.”
Following its review of the investigation, the Committee recommended further action. The report does not specify what that action was.