ADJ11502257 · January 22, 2026

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.

Defendant Hansink was not provided adequate notice of the January 3, 2023 trial date or subsequent orders; proof of service did not include him; WCJ assumed service without record evidence.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This violated statutory notice requirements and Hansink's right to due process, requiring rescission of the Findings and Award and remand for further proceedings.

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.

There was no adequate evidence in the record that defendant Hansink was uninsured at the time of injury; text messages and testimony about insurance status were speculative or uncorroborated.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without adequate evidence on insurance status, the WCJ's findings on licensure and employer liability were unsupported, requiring further evidentiary development on remand.

Applicant had a significant injury including a displaced fracture of the radial head and neck of his left elbow; surgery was recommended but did not occur due to employer's uninsured status; injuries are AOE/COE and left elbow injuries are permanent.

From the decision · page 2Hansink Construction "was and is the true employer." On February 19, 2020, Williams Trust filed a declaration of readiness to proceed (DOR), which was served on Hansink and the other defendants. Applicant filed a second amended Application on May 28, 2020, adding additional defendants Hansink, Mary Williams Leon (trustee of Williams Trust), and tenants Lori Leon and Richard Bedell, and alleging that all defendants were uninsured. On July 1, 2020, applicant's attorney served Special Notice of Lawsuit forms, pursuant to Labor Code section 3716 and Code of Civil Procedure sections 412.20 and 412.30, on defendants William Trust and Hansink. On March 11, 2021, panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) orthopedic surgeon Dr. Stuart Marshall examined applicant and issued a report. (Applicant's Exh. 10, QME Report of Stuart Marshall, M.D.) Dr. Marshall stated that applicant had a significant injury which included

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.

Defendant Hansink was not provided adequate notice of trial or subsequent orders, including the January 3, 2023 trial date; proof of service did not include Hansink; WCJ assumed service without record evidence.

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.

No adequate evidence in record that defendant Hansink was uninsured at time of injury; text messages and testimony about insurance status were speculative or uncorroborated.