Harrison, Gary, Applicant v. DISTRICT COUNCIL 16 NOR CAL JOINT APPRENTICESHIP; ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by SOUNDVIEW CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants

2
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GARY HARRISON, Applicant
vs.
DISTRICT COUNCIL 16 NOR CAL JOINT APPRENTICESHIP; ARCH INSURANCE
COMPANY, administered by SOUNDVIEW CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants
Adjudication Number: ADJ20235103
Oakland District Office
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PETITION
FOR REMOVAL
Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the “Order Limiting Subpoena Duces
Tecum” (Order) issued on October 3, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law
judge (WCJ).
Defendant contends that discovery of medical records should not be restricted to orthopedic
records, where applicant has only claimed injury to orthopedic body parts.
We 	have 	received 	an 	Answer 	from 	applicant. 	The 	WCJ 	filed 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Report) recommending that we deny removal.
We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal, the Answer, and the
contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s
analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny removal.
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.
Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155];
Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70
Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that
substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate
that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner
ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the

3
merits of petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable
harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if
the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Although applicant waived a certain degree of privacy upon filing a claim alleging
orthopedic injury, “. . . the scope of such ‘waiver’ must be narrowly rather than expansively
construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits by the fear of
exposure of their private associational affiliations and activities.” (Britt v. Superior Court of San
Diego County (1978) 20 Cal.3d. 844, 859.) The discovery sought must be directly relevant to the
claim and disclosure by applicant must be essential to the fair resolution of the claim. (Id.)
Here, defendant suggests that discovery of information unrelated to orthopedic injury is
relevant. However, defendant has not made any offer of proof as to the relevancy of this
information. No record exists upon which we can decide relevancy. The WCJ maintains
jurisdiction over discovery in this matter. If defendant requires a hearing to present evidence or
testimony, defendant may petition the court to either set aside or otherwise modify the current
discovery order and request a hearing on the issue. Defendant may then create a record establishing
the relevance of the information requested. On the record before us, it does not appear that non-
orthopedic medical records are relevant to an orthopedic injury claim.
Defendant next suggests that the modification of the subpoena is vague and thus
unenforceable. It is not manifestly evident that the term “orthopedic records only” is vague.
Accordingly, whether the term is vague must be established in the record, however again,
defendant has created no record nor provided any offer of proof as to how it would establish its
argument. It would be incumbent upon the entity producing the records to advise the parties if the
records request is vague or they do not understand it or cannot otherwise comply with it. Then, the
parties should meet and confer in good faith to address the concerns of the record holder. Absent
an agreement as to further modifying the records request, the parties may seek assistance from the
court. It does not appear that defendant has proceeded to enforce the subpoena and thus, its
argument as to vagueness is not ripe for adjudication.
Accordingly, we deny removal.

4
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Petition for Removal from the Order Limiting
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued on October 3, 2025, by the WCJ is DENIED.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
/s/ ANNE SCHMITZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
I CONCUR,
/s/ JOSEPH V. CAPURRO, COMMISSIONER
KATHERINE WILLIAMS DODD, COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING NOT SIGNING
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 4, 2025
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
GARY HARRISON
GEARHEART & SONNICKSEN
GILSON DAUB
EDL/mt
I certify that I affixed the official seal of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to this
original decision on this date. 	CS