Charter Communications; Broadspire Nancy Gilpen WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIANANCY GILPEN, Applicant,vs.CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS; BROADSPIRE, Defendant,DARRELL BURSTEIN, M.D., Party in interest.Case No. ADJ4225400 (MON0336507)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL Wc earlier removed this case to the Appeals Board on January 27, 2010 on our own motion in order to address the potential issuance of sanctions in light of the material discrepancy between statements made in verified pleadings filed with the Appeals Board by Dr. Burstein’s collections manager, Mary Barraza, and by defendant’s attorney, Marina Morrison of the law firm Lew’is, Brisbois, Bisgard & Smith. As we wrote in our January 27, 2010 Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration. Order Granting Removal on Motion of the Appeals Board, and Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions (NIT), which is incorporated herein by this reference, Ms. Barraza declared in the earlier filed petition for reconsideration of Dr. Burstein that he “did not receive notice of any hearing or of the trial, which took place on August 14, 2007,“ and that he “was also not served with any evidence from defendant’s case.” By contrast, Ms. Morrison wrote in a verified response to the petition for reconsideration that defendant did serve Dr. Burstein with notice of the August 17, 2007 trial and with copies of medical reports. , We granted removal in order to allow the parties a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether sanctions should be ordered for the reasons expressed in our NIT by having the WCJ conduct a hearing at which the panics could present testimonial and/or documentary evidence to address what notices of hearing and medical reports were served, when they were served, and the address(cs) to which they were served, and by allowing the parties to file post-trial briefs on the sanctions issues. A hearing was conducted by the WCJ pursuant
