What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the July 11, 2025 decision, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders issued July 11, 2025, which dismissed the case without prejudice and invalidated applicant's election under Labor Code 5500.5. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
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 WCJ found a valid collective bargaining agreement and ADR agreement, leading to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, but the WCAB found the record incomplete and remanded for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued July 11, 2025. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant was employed by Samuel Hale, LLC (Hale) as the general employer and DiBara Masonry (DiBara) as the special employer, that applicant's employment with Hale was subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement with the UFCW, that there was a valid alternative dispute resolution agreement, and that the WCAB does not have jurisdiction. The WCJ ordered the case dismissed without prejudice, invalidated applicant's election under Labor Code 5500.5,1 and ordered the case off calendar.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record was incomplete due to numerous objections and lack of clear admission of contested evidence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This prevented meaningful review of the merits and led to remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 6Here, it appears that no decision was rendered as to the admissibility of contested evidence and the relevant evidence was not actually admitted into the record. We note that in the first trial on February 14, 2024 only four exhibits were admitted without objection, and the remainder were marked for identification pending authentication. No opinion was rendered as to whether the contested exhibits were properly authenticated and admitted. On October 21, 2024, applicant offered four more exhibits which were also marked for identification as defendant objected. Then at the trial on June 30, 2025, applicant apparently lodged an objection to all defense exhibits and witnesses. There is an order admitting applicant exhibit 6. As a result, given the numerous objections as to the evidence and without orders clearly admitting the evidence, the record is incomplete, and we cannot meaningfully review the record. Thus, we are unable to consider the merits of the Petition. Upon return, the WCJ should rule on the objections and determine the admissibility of the contested exhibits and witnesses in the first instance.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Lab. Code sec. 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board under Labor Code section 5909.
The WCAB timely acted on the petition within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 5Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Numerous objections to evidence and lack of clear admission of contested exhibits and witnesses
From the decision · page 6Here, it appears that no decision was rendered as to the admissibility of contested evidence and the relevant evidence was not actually admitted into the record. We note that in the first trial on February 14, 2024 only four exhibits were admitted without objection, and the remainder were marked for identification pending authentication. No opinion was rendered as to whether the contested exhibits were properly authenticated and admitted. On October 21, 2024, applicant offered four more exhibits which were also marked for identification as defendant objected. Then at the trial on June 30, 2025, applicant apparently lodged an objection to all defense exhibits and witnesses. There is an order admitting applicant exhibit 6. As a result, given the numerous objections as to the evidence and without orders clearly admitting the evidence, the record is incomplete, and we cannot meaningfully review the record. Thus, we are unable to consider the merits of the Petition. Upon return, the WCJ should rule on the objections and determine the admissibility of the contested exhibits and witnesses in the first instance.
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.