ADJ15811594 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

April 18, 2023 Findings and Award rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant seeking review of the April 18, 2023 Findings and Award; WCAB rescinded the F&A and returned the matter to trial level for further proceedings.

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 WCAB found that the petition to set aside was not adjudicated on the merits and that proceeding without a proper record violated defendant's due process rights, warranting remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 7Here, we are unable to provide meaningful review due to the state of the record. At issue is the status of defendant's petition to set aside. Neither the merits of that petition, nor the question of whether that petition had been abandoned, were listed as issues at the February 7, 2023 trial. Instead, the list of trial issues included only "timeliness of motion to set aside." While the petition to set aside, the response to the petition to set aside, and the petition for penalties are properly filed to invoke the jurisdiction of the WCAB, they are part of the record of proceedings. But, they are not evidence, and there is no summary judgement in workers' compensation cases. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.) In contrast, when a hearing is held or a settlement document is approved, an action has been taken by the WCAB, and judicial notice is proper.

The rules the panel named

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

Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, 577

Due process requires a fair hearing and proper adjudication of issues before the WCAB.

The WCAB applied this constitutional standard to find that defendant's due process rights were violated by proceeding without adjudicating the petition to set aside.

From the decision · page 6476 (citation omitted).) All parties in workers' compensation proceedings retain their fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rucker) (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) As stated by the Supreme Court of California in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, 577: [The] commission,...must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, --in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law.

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

The WCJ's decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and must clearly state reasons and evidence relied on.

The WCAB rescinded the prior decision due to lack of a complete record and inadequate findings, requiring further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6II. The WCJ's decision must be "based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc); Lab. Code, § 5313.) "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 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." (Hamilton at p.

ADJ15811594 · January 3, 2025

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