What the panel ordered
The Findings and Order issued on May 4, 2021, is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings due to lack of a proper record.
Petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation arbitrator on May 4, 2021, was granted to further study factual and legal issues.
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.
The record was incomplete and lacked proper evidence and transcript, preventing meaningful review of the post-termination defense issue; thus, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on May 4, 2021, wherein the WCA found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her back, left arm, left leg and left knee during the period August 26, 2019 through August 26, 2020.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record lacked the transcript of proceedings, submitted evidence, and identification of stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.
Favours neutral
This incomplete record prevented meaningful review and a well-reasoned decision, necessitating rescission and remand.
From the decision · page 3Here, the WCA issued the Report dated May 28, 2021, however, the record does not include the transcript of proceedings, or submitted evidence. Moreover, the record does not contain any identification of the stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc)
An arbitrator's decision must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence, with an adequate and complete record to understand the basis for the decision.
The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision and remanded the matter due to lack of a proper record, emphasizing the need for a complete evidentiary record for meaningful review.
From the decision · page 3As with a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), an arbitrator's decision must be based on admitted evidence and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10566.) "It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record. At a minimum, the record must contain, in properly organized form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence." (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 475.) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on," so that "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]... For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Id.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The record did not include the transcript of proceedings, submitted evidence, or identification of stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.
From the decision · page 3Here, the WCA issued the Report dated May 28, 2021, however, the record does not include the transcript of proceedings, or submitted evidence. Moreover, the record does not contain any identification of the stipulations, exhibits, and issues at trial.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.