ADJ18882823 · May 29, 2024

The petition was dismissed as premature because no evidence was admitted to support the defendant's claim of mutual mistake regarding the wage rate, and due process requires a hearing and record before setting aside stipulations.

From the decision · page 3As the moving party, defendant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, it should be relieved from the settlement agreement it entered into with applicant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence"].) Defendant seeks to set aside the Order but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding its allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate defendant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.

No evidence was admitted into the record to support defendant's claim of mutual mistake regarding the wage rate.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without evidence, the Board could not evaluate the defendant's contentions and dismissed the petition as premature.

From the decision · page 3As the moving party, defendant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, it should be relieved from the settlement agreement it entered into with applicant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence"].) Defendant seeks to set aside the Order but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding its allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate defendant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.

County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114

Stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown to withdraw them.

The Board applied this standard to evaluate the defendant's request to set aside the stipulation.

From the decision · page 2Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) As defined in Weatherall, "A stipulation is `An agreement between opposing counsel... ordinarily entered into for the purpose of avoiding delay, trouble, or expense in the conduct of the action,' (Ballentine, Law Dict. (1930) p. 1235, col. 2) and serves `to obviate need for proof or to narrow range of

Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964

Good cause includes mutual mistake, duress, fraud, undue influence, and procedural irregularities.

The Board considered these factors in determining whether to set aside the stipulation.

From the decision · page 3"Good cause" to set aside an order or stipulations depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. "Good cause" includes mutual mistake of fact, duress, fraud, undue influence, and procedural irregularities. (Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964, 975 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 362]; Santa Maria Bonita School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 848, 850 (writ den.); City of Beverly Hills v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dowdle) (1997) 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 1691, 1692 (writ den.); Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1160, 1170 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 311] (writ den.).) To determine whether there is good cause to rescind a stipulation, the circumstances surrounding its execution and approval must be assessed. (See § 5702; Weatherall, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1118-1121; Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Robinson) (1987) 199 Cal.App.3d 784, 790-792 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419]; Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Huston) (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 864-867 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].)

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

Decisions must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence.

The Board emphasized the need for evidence to support decisions and the requirement for due process.

From the decision · page 3As explained in Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350-351], a decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Id. at p. 478) and must be supported by substantial evidence. (§ 5903, 5952, subd. (d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Aside from providing assurance that due process is being provided, this "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].)

No evidence admitted to support defendant's contentions regarding wage rate.

From the decision · page 3As the moving party, defendant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, it should be relieved from the settlement agreement it entered into with applicant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence"].) Defendant seeks to set aside the Order but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding its allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate defendant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.