ADJ10504110 · September 25, 2023

There was no evidentiary record or notice of intention before the order joining the Mets as party defendant, so the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed as premature and the matter is returned for further proceedings to create a record.

From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ issued the order2 joining the Mets 15 days after the filing of the petition for joinder, without providing the parties with notice of intention under rule 10832 or setting the matter for further hearing, and accordingly, there is an insufficient basis upon which to evaluate the issues raised in the Mets' Petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.)

There was no evidentiary record or notice of intention before the order joining the Mets as party defendant.

Favours neutral

Without a record or proper notice, the Board could not evaluate the propriety of the joinder, requiring dismissal of the Petition as premature and remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ issued the order2 joining the Mets 15 days after the filing of the petition for joinder, without providing the parties with notice of intention under rule 10832 or setting the matter for further hearing, and accordingly, there is an insufficient basis upon which to evaluate the issues raised in the Mets' Petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.)

Lab. Code § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10382; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].

Any decision to rejoin parties previously dismissed should be based upon an adequate record after providing the parties an opportunity to be heard, in the same manner as any other order touching on the parties' due process rights.

Applied to require a record and opportunity to be heard before joining a previously dismissed party.

From the decision · page 2Accordingly, any decision to rejoin parties previously dismissed should be based upon an adequate record after providing the parties an opportunity to be heard, in the same manner as any other order touching on the parties' due process rights. (Lab. Code § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10382; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].)

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832; San Bernardino Community Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986]

The process of issuing a Notice of Intention provides both notice to the parties of the court's intended course of action, and the opportunity for those parties to be heard.

Applied to explain that the WCJ should have issued a Notice of Intention before joining the Mets.

From the decision · page 3We note that here, one of the procedural options available to the WCJ was the issuance of a Notice of Intention (NIT). WCAB Rule 10832 describes the process by which a WCJ may issue an NIT, and provides a framework designed to afford the parties with their "fundamental rights to due process." (Rucker, supra, at pp. 157-158.) Rule 10832 provides that following the filing of a petition, the WCJ may, "for any proper purpose," provide notice of its intended action, and thereafter provide the parties with corresponding opportunity to respond to the notice. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(a).) The process of issuing a Notice of Intention thus provides both notice to the parties of the court's intended course of action, and the opportunity for those parties to be heard. (Ibid.; San Bernardino Community Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986] [the essence of due process is notice and opportunity to be heard].) Issuing a notice of intention clearly sets out the next steps required of both the parties and the WCJ, and encourages the creation of a complete record which reflects the evidentiary and the legal bases for the WCJ's determination. (Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, at p. 755.)

There was no evidentiary record upon which to address the WCJ's decision to order the joinder of the Mets.

From the decision · page 3Dismissal Without Prejudice, March 13, 2020.) However, there is no record upon which to address the WCJ's decision to order the joinder of the Mets. Without an evidentiary record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. (Hamilton, supra, at p. 476.)

The WCJ issued the order joining the Mets without providing the parties with notice of intention or setting the matter for further hearing.

From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ issued the order2 joining the Mets 15 days after the filing of the petition for joinder, without providing the parties with notice of intention under rule 10832 or setting the matter for further hearing, and accordingly, there is an insufficient basis upon which to evaluate the issues raised in the Mets' Petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832.)