ADJ14092813 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Reconsideration granted; WCJ's Order Awarding Interpreting Costs of July 27, 2023, rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Blanca Hund Interpreting, Inc. seeking reconsideration of the Order Awarding Interpreting Costs issued by the WCJ on July 27, 2023.

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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailed

The WCJ failed to issue a notice of intention and did not hold a hearing or provide a summary of evidence, preventing meaningful review and evaluation of the order's basis, requiring reconsideration and remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 4(1) Allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien;.... (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832(a)(1).) Here, after the Lien claimant filed its Petition for Costs, the WCJ needed to issue a notice of intention (NIT) pursuant to WCAB Rule 10832. Here, the WCJ failed to issue a NIT in response to the Lien claimant's Petition for Costs, and instead on July 27, 2023, issued an Order without holding a hearing. Further, there were no minutes of hearing filed nor testimony taken and the WCJ did not provide a summary of the evidence relied on when making the decision to issue the Order. Thus, we are unable to perform meaningful review or evaluate the basis of the Order without an evidentiary record. Therefore, we must grant reconsideration, rescind the Order, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. Upon return to the trial level, we recommend that the WCJ hold a hearing to allow the parties to frame the issues and any stipulations, submit exhibits as evidence, call witnesses, if necessary, lodge any objections, and make their legal arguments. Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, rescind the Order, and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code sections 5502, 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10761; Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-622 (Appeals Board. en banc)

WCJ must make and file findings upon all facts involved and provide a summary of evidence and reasons for determination

The WCJ failed to provide a summary of evidence and reasons in the Order Awarding Interpreting Costs, violating these requirements.

From the decision · page 3The statutory and regulatory duties of a WCJ include the issuance of a decision that complies with Labor Code section 53131. A WCJ is required to "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 evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5502, 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (Blackledge) (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-622 (Appeals Board. en banc).)

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board. en banc)

Decisions must be based on admitted evidence in the record; WCJ must refer to evidence in opinion and clearly designate evidence forming basis of decision

The WCJ did not hold a hearing or provide evidence summary, preventing meaningful review and evaluation of the order's basis.

From the decision · page 3Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board. en banc) (Hamilton).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.) In Hamilton, we held that the record of proceeding must contain, at a minimum, "the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and the admitted evidence." (Ibid.) Part of the WCJ's responsibility is to "frame the issues and stipulations for trial." (Id. at p. 475.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 476, 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(a)(1)

WCAB Rule 10832 requires issuance of a notice of intention for allowing or disallowing a lien

The WCJ failed to issue a notice of intention in response to the Petition for Costs, issuing an order without a hearing.

From the decision · page 4WCAB Rule 10832 states: (a) The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose, including but not limited to:

ADJ14092813 · October 2, 2023

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page