Livingston, David, Applicant v. TAHLEQUAH STEEL INCORPORATED and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; BLI INC DBA BLI PAYROLL SOLUTIONS INSUR AND BLI INS SOLUTIONS INC., and EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY administered by AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT; SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC. and STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE by PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION, Defendants

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID LIVINGSTON, Applicant
vs.
TAHLEQUAH STEEL INCORPORATED and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE
FUND; BLI INC DBA BLI PAYROLL SOLUTIONS INSUR AND BLI INS SOLUTIONS
INC., and EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY administered by
AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT; SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.
and STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE by PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants
Adjudication Numbers: ADJ9997985; ADJ9997986; ADJ10037755
(Van Nuys District Office)
OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
AND DECISION AFTER
RECONSIDERATION
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the “Order Imposing Sanctions against Craig Glass and
Glass Law Group” pursuant to Labor Code section 58131and WCAB Rule 10421 (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 10421) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 27,
2025. The WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant’s attorneys delayed the case unnecessarily
and ordered applicant’s attorneys to pay jointly and severally sanctions of one hundred and twenty-
five dollars ($125.00) to the General Fund.
Applicant contends that defendant’s service of the August 5, 2025 Second Amended
Petition for Sanctions per Labor Code section 5813 (Second Amended Petition for Sanctions) was
1 All further references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise noted.

2
defective because it was sent to the wrong address,2 and disputes that applicant’s attorneys have
unreasonably delayed prosecution of this case.
We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and
Recommendation on the Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny
reconsideration.
We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of
the Report of the WCJ with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons
discussed below, we will grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the Order
Imposing Sanctions and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this
decision.
BACKGROUND
On May 1, 2023, applicant filed a Substitution of Attorneys naming Glass Law as his new
attorneys of record, with a mailing address of 22033 Clarendon Street, Suite 103, Woodland Hills,
California, 91367.
As of July 24, 2024, the official address of record for service on Glass Law was changed
to 22120 Clarendon Street, Suite 200, Woodland Hills, California, 91367.
On August 5, 2025, defendant filed the Second Amended Petition for Sanctions served
applicant’s attorneys at 22033 Clarendon Street, Suite 103, Woodland Hills, California, 91367.
One day later, on August 6, 2025, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Issue Sanctions
(NIT) against applicant’s attorneys “Craig Glass and Glass Law Group” of $975.00. The NIT
stated in pertinent part that:
In this case, Craig Glass failed to complete service of process on the Secretary of
State and seek joinder of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund despite
providing assurances to the undersigned WCJ that he would do so. Due to the
extraordinary delay, the undersigned WCJ believes that Craig Glass has no
intention to complete this ministerial act causing undue prejudice against the
Defendants seeking adjudication of their respective rights and obligations.
According to attached proof of service, applicant’s attorneys were served by the WCAB at 22033
Clarendon Street, Suite 103, Woodland Hills, California, 91367.
2 The record does not contain a proof of service for the Second Amended Petition for Sanctions. According to the
proof of service that was attached to the Second Amended Petition for Sanctions, defendant served a Petition for
Dismissal of Claim and Proposed Order on August 5, 2025. (Second Amended Petition for Sanctions, at p. 85.)

3
On August 14, 2025, defendant served the August 6, 2025 NIT on applicant’s attorneys at
22033 Clarendon Street, Suite 103, Woodland Hills, California, 91367.
On August 25, 2025 applicant’s attorney Monica Fairwell at Glass Law Group filed and
served an Objection to Notice of Intent to Order Sanctions on behalf of Glass Law Group with
attached documents regarding their attempts to serve. She asserted in relevant part:
…Applicant’s attorney first became aware of a request for sanctions by
defendants from WCJ Pollak’s notice of intent for sanctions because defendants
failed 	to 	properly 	serve 	applicant's 	attorney 	with 	their 	petition 	for
sanctions.
Defendants served applicant’s attorney prior address instead of the correct
EAMS address. Had defendants served applicant’s attorney with their petition,
we would have contacted them to provide the information of the ongoing efforts
to join UEBTF and applicant's attorney would have issued an objection.
(Objection to Notice of Intent to Order Sanctions, at p. 2:40-46.)
On August 27, 2025, the WCJ issued the Order Imposing Sanctions against applicant’s
attorney Craig Glass and Glass Law Group of $125.00. In the Order, the WCJ stated in relevant
part that:
On August 26, 2025, Monica Fairwell from Glass Law Group, filed her
objection dated August 26, 2025. In her objection, she claimed that she was
under the false pretense that Mr. Glass needed to serve Guy Barton, the deceased
chief executive officer and sole owner of Tahlequah Steel, Inc., (2:15-16) and
sought to retain the Haas Law Corporation to locate the estate of Guy Barton in
order to serve the trustee of his estate (2:17-20) making multiple failed attempts
to contact that individual. (2:21-24). She attempts to deflect any responsibility
on the Defendants (2:36-39) and generally to the Uninsured Employers Benefits
Trust Fund. (2:27-31)
***
. . . it is not Mr. Glass’s role to seek and serve the trustee of the estate of Guy
Barton where service of process is perfectible on the Secretary of State. Given
his experience as a retired workers’ compensation judge, Mr. Glass should be
aware of the applicable legal standards. As a result, he has delayed this case
unnecessarily.
However, having determined that Mr. Glass was active in this case, despite his
unnecessary detour, it is appropriate to reduce the sanctions in this case. . . .
It is from this Order Imposing Sanctions that applicant’s attorneys seek reconsideration.

4
DISCUSSION
I.
Former section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless
the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.)
Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
(a) 	A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals
board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits
a case to the appeals board.
(b)
(1) 	When a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board, the trial
judge shall provide notice to the parties of the case and the appeals
board.
(2) 	For purposes of paragraph (1), service of the accompanying report,
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5900, shall constitute providing
notice.
Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within
60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in
the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under
Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase
“The case is sent to the Recon board.”
Here, 	according 	to 	Events, 	the 	case 	was 	transmitted 	to 	the 	Appeals 	Board 	on
September 16, 2025 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, November 15, 2025.
The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, November 17,
2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 10600(b).)3 This decision was issued by or on November 17,
2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
Section 5909(b)(1) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice
of transmission of the case. Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides
3 WCAB Rule 10600(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b)) states that:
Unless otherwise provided by law, if the last day for exercising or performing any right or duty to act or
respond falls on a weekend, or on a holiday for which the offices of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals
Board are closed, the act or response may be performed or exercised upon the next business day.

5
notice to the Appeals Board. Thus, the requirement in subdivision (1) ensures that the parties are
notified of the accurate date for the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to
act on a petition. Section 5909(b)(2) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation shall
be notice of transmission.
Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the WCJ,
the Report was served on September 16, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board
on September 16, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board
occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of
transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with
section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period
on September 16, 2025.
II.
It is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial
evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d
274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35
Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35
Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) 	“The term ‘substantial evidence’ means evidence which, if true, has
probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion…It must be reasonable in
nature, credible, and of solid value.” 	(Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers’ Comp.
Appeals Bd (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and
citations omitted.)
Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.”
(Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals
Board en banc).) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the
WCJ’s decision. 	(Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) 	“It is the
responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is
submitted for decision on the record. 	At a minimum, the record must contain, in properly
organized form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties,
and admitted evidence.” (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 475.) The WCJ’s decision
must “set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the

6
evidence relied on,” so that “the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain
the basis for the decision[.] . . . For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer
with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record.” (Id. at p. 476, citing Evans v.
Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).)
The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the record
does not contain substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully
adjudicate the issues. (§§ 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th
389, 394 [65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431, 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924] [“The principle of allowing full
development of the evidentiary record to enable a complete adjudication of the issues is consistent
with due process in connection with workers' compensation claims.”]; see McClune v. Workers’
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 898, 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261];
Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases
805]; Gangwish v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66
Cal.Comp.Cases 584].)
The Appeals Board also has a constitutional mandate to “ensure substantial justice in all
cases.” 	(Kuykendall v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65
Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) 	The Board may not leave matters undeveloped where it is clear that
additional discovery is needed. (Id. at p. 404.)
All parties in workers’ compensation proceedings retain their fundamental right to due
process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker,
supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 157-158.) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens
v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, 577:
[The] commission,…must find facts and declare and enforce rights and
liabilities,--in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the
constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process
of law.
Due process guarantees all parties the right to notice of hearing and a fair hearing. (Rucker, supra,
82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 157-158.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to
call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal.
(See Gangwish, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1295; Rucker, supra, at pp. 157-158, citing Kaiser Co.
v. I.A.C. (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21]; Katzin, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at
p. 710.)

7
First, we emphasize that defendant’s Second Amended Petition lacked a valid proof of
service. Next, the Second Amended Petition, the NIT, and the resulting Order imposing sanctions
were served at an incorrect address for applicant’s attorneys so that there was no valid service.
Thus, the NIT was void ab initio, and the Order based on the NIT is void as well.
Even if the Petition, the NIT and the Order had been properly served, we are unable to
provide meaningful review due to the lack of a record. We emphasize that the Petition is not
evidence, and there is no summary judgement in workers’ compensation cases. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 10515.) Upon receipt of defendant’s August 5, 2025 Petition, if the WCJ wished to take
action on it, he should have set the matter for hearing. Instead, in the NIT he makes vague
references to applicant’s attorney Mr. Glass “providing assurances to the undersigned WCJ that
he would [effect service],” with no identification of the date of such assurances and no reference
to any evidence. This statement by the WCJ is likely enough to have rendered the NIT void, even
if properly served, because it is not based on an evidentiary record and does not state with
particularity what occurred, thereby violating due process.
Moreover, based on the Objection and the allegations by applicant’s attorney Ms. Fairwell,
she was endeavoring to carry out service, and not Mr. Glass, the person to whom the WCJ referred
in the NIT. Once the WCJ received the Objection with its attached documents, the WCJ should
have set the matter for hearing to clarify the proper person responsible and because the documents
are not in evidence. Instead, he imposed sanctions against “Craig Glass” and “Glass Law Group”
jointly and severally, despite no response from Mr. Glass to the NIT.
In the Order, he takes issue Ms. Fairwell’s actions, despite the lack of an evidentiary record,
and he goes on to refer to Mr. Glass’ experience and that “he should be aware of the applicable
legal standards.” This blurring of the roles of the person responsible is another example of the lack
of an evidentiary record and the failure to identify with particularity the conduct that was frivolous
or intended to cause delay, and could be another basis to conclude that the Order was void. That
is, the alleged offending party, applicant’s attorney Mr. Glass, appears to have not been given the
proper notice or opportunity to be heard on this issue, which is required before sanctions may be
imposed. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.)

8
In sum, an evidentiary record, a proper notice identifying the person responsible and the
alleged conduct with particularity, and an opportunity to be heard are all required. We return the
matter to the district office so that the Second Petition Amended Petition for Sanctions may be
addressed in the first instance, in order to create a complete record upon which findings and
decisions may be based.
Accordingly, we grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the August 27,
2025 Order of the WCJ Imposing Sanctions and return the matter to the district office for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.

9
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration in response to the Order
imposing sanctions issued on August 27, 2025 by the WCJ is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board that the August 27, 2025 Order Imposing Sanctions against Craig
Glass and Glass Law Group is RESCINDED and the matter is RETURNED to the district office
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
/s/ JOSEPH V. CAPURRO, COMMISSIONER
I CONCUR,
/s/ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, CHAIR
/s/ JOSÉ H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
November 14, 2025
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
DAVID LIVINGSTON
GLASS LAW GROUP
CBE LAW GROUP
STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
ALBERT AND MACKENZIE
SL/abs
I certify that I affixed the official seal of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to this
original decision on this date. 	abs