Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5803
The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction and may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause after notice and hearing.
Applied to determine whether there is good cause to set aside the Awards.
From the decision · page 4"The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards
Lab. Code, 5702
The parties may stipulate facts in writing and the appeals board may make findings and awards based on such stipulations or set the matter for hearing to determine the controversy.
Applied to the stipulations with request for award and their setting aside.
From the decision · page 4The parties to a controversy may stipulate the facts relative thereto in writing
and file such stipulation with the appeals board. The appeals board may
thereupon make its findings and award based upon such stipulation, or may set
the matter down for hearing and take further testimony or make the further
investigation necessary to enable it to determine the matter in controversy.
Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964
Good cause to set aside an order or stipulations includes mutual mistake of fact, duress, fraud, undue influence, and procedural irregularities.
Used to assess good cause to set aside the stipulations.
From the decision · page 5"Good cause" to set aside an order or stipulations depends upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. "Good cause" includes mutual mistake of fact, duress, fraud, undue influence, and
procedural irregularities. (Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964, 975
[35 Cal.Comp.Cases 362]; Santa Maria Bonita School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 848, 850 (writ den.); City of Beverly Hills v. Worker's Comp. Appeals
Bd. (Dowdle) (1997) 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 1691, 1692 (writ den.); Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1160, 1170 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 311] (writ den.).) To determine
whether there is good cause to set aside the Awards, the circumstances surrounding their execution
and approval must be assessed. (Weatherall, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1118-1121; Robinson
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Robinson) (1987) 199 Cal.App.3d 784, 790-792 [52
Cal.Comp.Cases 419]; Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Huston) (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d
856, 864-867 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].)
Lab. Code, 5903
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence.
Applied to review adequacy of permanent disability ratings.
From the decision · page 6Applicant also takes issue with whether the permanent disability rating for each Award is
adequate. It is acknowledged that decisions of 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].) Thus, we consider whether there is substantial evidence in the
record to support the permanent disability ratings in each Award.
Lab. Code, 5952(d)
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence.
Applied to review adequacy of permanent disability ratings.
From the decision · page 6Applicant also takes issue with whether the permanent disability rating for each Award is
adequate. It is acknowledged that decisions of 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].) Thus, we consider whether there is substantial evidence in the
record to support the permanent disability ratings in each Award.
WCAB Rule 10700(b)
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board shall inquire into the adequacy of all Compromise and Release agreements and Stipulations with Request for Award, and may set the matter for hearing to take evidence when necessary to determine whether the agreement should be approved or disapproved, or issue findings and awards.
Applied to review adequacy of permanent disability ratings.
DWC Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Policy and Procedural Manual (2013 Revision), section 1.91
Stipulations with Request for Award shall be considered adequate and an Award shall issue if the stipulated level of permanent disability is reasonably within the range of evidence based on the medical reports submitted, medical care is awarded where appropriate based upon the medical reports submitted, and any other issues are adequately resolved by the stipulations.
Applied to review adequacy of permanent disability ratings.
From the decision · page 6Stipulations with Request for Award shall be considered adequate and an Award
shall issue if the stipulated level of permanent disability is reasonably within the
range of evidence based on the medical reports submitted, medical care is
awarded where appropriate based upon the medical reports submitted, and any
other issues are adequately resolved by the stipulations.
Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775
The parties presumably choose an AME because of the AME's expertise and neutrality. The Board will follow the opinions of the AME unless good cause exists to find their opinion unpersuasive.
Applied to give weight to the AME's opinion on permanent disability ratings.
From the decision · page 7Both Stipulations with Request for Award reflect that they were based on ratings of the
reporting from the AME Dr. Pang. The parties presumably choose an AME because of the AME's
expertise and neutrality. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782
[51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].) We will follow the opinions of the AME unless good cause exists to
find their opinion unpersuasive. (Ibid.)
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604
The AME conducted a thorough and comprehensive evaluation including two physical examinations and extensive records review, explaining the basis for impairment ratings and apportionment to a reasonable medical probability.
Applied to support the adequacy of the permanent disability ratings based on the AME's report.
From the decision · page 7Furthermore, review of Dr. Pang's reporting and deposition transcript show that he
conducted a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of applicant including two physical
examinations and review of extensive records. He explained the basis for his impairment ratings
and for apportionment between the two injuries for applicant's lumbar spine condition to a
reasonable medical probability. (See Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621
(Appeals Board en banc).)