ADJ7306346 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Board rescinds the January 3, 2022 Findings and Order and vacates the Order of Dismissal dated March 23, 2016, finding it void ab initio.

Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order dated January 3, 2022, which denied vacating the Order of Dismissal dated March 23, 2016.

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 Order of Dismissal dated March 23, 2016, was void ab initio due to lack of valid service of the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and procedural defects, thus good cause to vacate was found.

From the decision · page 4Here, the WCJ issued a NIT on February 25, 2016, and defendant was designated for service. Proof of service of the NIT, however, was not located in the evidentiary record and the WCJ confirmed as much in his August 23, 2021 Minutes of Hearing. Given that valid service was not completed, the NIT and the subsequent March 23, 20216 Order of Dismissal are thus void in ab initio.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The rules the panel named

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

Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703

Due process requires reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissal.

The lack of valid service of the Notice of Intent to Dismiss violated due process, rendering the dismissal void ab initio.

From the decision · page 5Due process also requires that a party be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 711- 712 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].) All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is "... one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant..." (Id. at 158.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, "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." (Id. at p. 577.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker, supra, at pp. 157-158 citing Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21]; Katzin, supra, at p. 710.)

Labor Code section 5803

Labor Code section 5803 provides continuing jurisdiction over all orders and awards.

The Appeals Board retains continuing jurisdiction to vacate the defective dismissal order.

From the decision · page 6Lastly, respect to the issue of estoppel and lack of continuing jurisdiction, the Legislature has expressly provided that the Appeals Board has "continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the provisions of this division[.]" (§ 5803.) Thus, while the ability to alter a final award five years after the date of injury requires good cause under sections 5410 and 5804, at no time does the Appeals Board lose jurisdiction. Further, the Appeals Board has broad equitable powers with respect to matters within its jurisdiction. (Dyer v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1382 [59 Cal.Comp.Cases 96].) In Maples v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 827 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 1106], the court observed that equitable principles are frequently applied to workers' compensation matters. In that case, the court held that based upon the principles of equitable estoppel, the Appeals Board erred in permitting the insurance carrier in that case to claim an overpayment of temporary disability against applicant's permanent disability since the carrier unreasonably delayed in filing the medical report used to terminate benefits. (Id. at pp. 837-838.)

ADJ7306346 · December 17, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page