ADJ8202033 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Rescinded January 21, 2021 Findings of Fact, Order, and Opinion on Decision; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

Petition for Reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues; decision after reconsideration issued rescinding prior findings and returning matter to trial level

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 / venueApplicant prevailed

The WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction over workers' compensation orders even after entry as a Superior Court judgment; Superior Courts have limited enforcement authority but no power to modify or vacate such orders; the WCJ erred by deciding merits beyond jurisdiction question; matter must return to trial level for further proceedings on merits.

From the decision · page 74th 480, 492-493) Thus, if a party wishes to set aside or otherwise modify an order of the WCAB that has been entered as a judgement in the Superior Court, the only venue to modify such an order is through the WCAB. The problem with the F&O in this matter is that the WCJ went beyond the question of jurisdiction and, in effect, decided whether good cause existed to set aside or modify the order of contribution. That issue was not raised at trial and we make no decision on the merits at this time. Upon return, the parties may submit the issue of Liberty Mutual's request to set aside the order of contribution and the WCJ may issue findings of fact accordingly. Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration we will rescind the January 21, 2021 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The facts that decided it

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

Liberty Mutual was served with an Amended Order Joining Party Defendant on November 14, 2013, and other notices and orders at their correct address.

Favours neutral

Shows Liberty Mutual had proper notice and opportunity to respond, relevant to jurisdiction and procedural posture.

From the decision · page 1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that Liberty Mutual was served with an Amended Order Joining Party Defendant on November 14, 2013, a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed on April 14, 2017, a Minutes of Hearing and Notice of Intent to Issue an Order to Reimburse State Fund on July 12, 2017, and ultimately an Order to Pay Contribution to State Fund on August 16, 2017. The WCJ found that Liberty Mutual failed to file a petition for reconsideration from the August 16, 2017 order of contribution, and thus, no basis existed to invoke continuing jurisdiction to alter or amend the order of contribution.

Liberty Mutual failed to file a petition for reconsideration from the August 16, 2017 Order to Pay Contribution, so no basis existed to invoke continuing jurisdiction to alter or amend the order.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports the conclusion that the WCJ lacked jurisdiction to modify the order after it became final and entered as judgment.

From the decision · page 1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that Liberty Mutual was served with an Amended Order Joining Party Defendant on November 14, 2013, a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed on April 14, 2017, a Minutes of Hearing and Notice of Intent to Issue an Order to Reimburse State Fund on July 12, 2017, and ultimately an Order to Pay Contribution to State Fund on August 16, 2017. The WCJ found that Liberty Mutual failed to file a petition for reconsideration from the August 16, 2017 order of contribution, and thus, no basis existed to invoke continuing jurisdiction to alter or amend the order of contribution.

The WCJ went beyond the jurisdiction question and decided on merits of good cause to set aside or modify the order, which was not raised at trial.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Indicates error in the WCJ's decision, requiring remand for proper proceedings.

From the decision · page 74th 480, 492-493) Thus, if a party wishes to set aside or otherwise modify an order of the WCAB that has been entered as a judgement in the Superior Court, the only venue to modify such an order is through the WCAB. The problem with the F&O in this matter is that the WCJ went beyond the question of jurisdiction and, in effect, decided whether good cause existed to set aside or modify the order of contribution. That issue was not raised at trial and we make no decision on the merits at this time. Upon return, the parties may submit the issue of Liberty Mutual's request to set aside the order of contribution and the WCJ may issue findings of fact accordingly. Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration we will rescind the January 21, 2021 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The rules the panel named

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

Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396

Exclusive jurisdiction of WCAB over workers' compensation claims and orders

The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to ensure substantial justice and exclusive jurisdiction over workers' compensation claims and orders.

From the decision · page 5DISCUSSION The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) Substantial justice is "[j]ustice fairly administered according to the rules of substantive law, regardless of any procedural errors not affecting the litigant's substantive rights; a fair trial on the merits." (Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999).) To the extent that SCIF may have failed to serve exhibits timely in accordance with the WCJ's pre-trial order, we would note that such a failure ordinarily will not result in exclusion of exhibits but may give good cause to order a continuance to avoid unfair surprise. We would further note that parties in workers compensation are now required to meet and confer prior to a mandatory settlement conference, which requires that the parties disclose witnesses and exhibits expected to be produced at trial. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10759.) If a party does not have a copy of a proposed trial exhibit, the party should request a copy well in advance of either the mandatory settlement conference, or the trial.

Labor Code Section 5806; Loustalot v. Superior Court (1947) 30 Cal.2d 905

Limited jurisdiction of Superior Courts to enforce but not modify WCAB orders

Superior courts may enter judgment in conformity with WCAB awards but cannot stay or modify proceedings under the award; Legislature precludes superior courts from jurisdiction over workers' compensation matters except enforcement.

From the decision · page 6Superior courts may, however, exercise a limited jurisdiction to enforce WCAB orders and awards in accordance with a narrowly drawn mandate. Section 5806 provides that "[a]ny party affected thereby may file a certified copy of the findings and order, decision, or award of the appeals board with the clerk of the superior court of any county," and that "[j]udgment shall be entered immediately by the clerk in conformity therewith." (§ 5806.) Although section 5806 authorizes the entry of a civil judgment in conformity with a WCAB award, the superior court "has no jurisdiction to stay or modify any proceedings under the award." (Greitz v. Sivachenko (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 849, 850§ 851 [313 P.2d 922]; see also Vickich v. Superior Court (1930) 105 Cal.App. 587, 592 [288 P.

ADJ8202033 · May 3, 2024

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

About this page