ADJ11502257 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Findings and Award issued March 9, 2023, rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Uninsured Employer Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) challenging Findings and Award issued by WCJ on March 9, 2023; WCJ recommended denial of Petition; WCAB rescinded the Findings and Award and returned matter to trial level for further proceedings due to inadequate notice and insufficient evidence on key issues.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Jurisdiction / venueRemanded

The WCJ failed to provide adequate notice to defendant Hansink and did not make adequate findings on insurance coverage and licensure, which are critical to determining liability among defendants.

From the decision · page 6Here, defendant Hansink was not provided with adequate notice of trial or of subsequent orders. He was noticed for the October 18, 2022 trial date, but no trial took place on that date. Instead, on September 26, 2022, the trial date was reset. The record contains no proof of service demonstrating that Hansink was provided notice for the January 3, 2023 trial date, as required. In addition, the WCJ did not create a record demonstrating that Hansink was served with notice; she assumed it.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5313

The WCJ must make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and serve findings, decision, order or award with a summary of evidence and reasons (Labor Code section 5313).

Applied to require adequate findings and service of findings and award.

From the decision · page 610625(a), (b) and (c).) The method of service of any notice, order or decision must comply with the requirements of section 5316. (Lab. Code, § 5316.) After a case is submitted, the WCJ must "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313.)

Labor Code section 5316

The method of service of any notice, order or decision must comply with the requirements of section 5316.

Applied to require proper service of notices and orders to all parties.

From the decision · page 610625(a), (b) and (c).) The method of service of any notice, order or decision must comply with the requirements of section 5316. (Lab. Code, § 5316.) After a case is submitted, the WCJ must "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313.)

McKernan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 931

Notice and opportunity to be heard are essential elements of due process.

Applied to find that Hansink was denied due process due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.

From the decision · page 6Further, Hansink's name is not included on the proof of service for the January 3, 2023 orders, which included the order allowing him 30 days in which to object. Thus, there can be no doubt that he was not provided with notice of this order, and that he had no opportunity to object to anything that occurred at the January 3, 2023 trial. Moreover, the March 9, 2023, F&A was not served on Hansink. These notice failures violated both the statutory notice requirements and Hansink's right to due process. (Lab. Code § 5504, 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625, 10750; McKernan, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 936 [the "essence of due process is simply notice and the opportunity to be heard"]; Gangwish, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1295.) Hansink is a defendant in this case, but he was provided with neither adequate notice nor the opportunity to be heard at trial. For this reason, as well as the additional reasons described below, we rescind the F&A, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

ADJ11502257 · January 22, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page