Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613 (Appeals Bd. en banc)
WCJ must make and file findings on all facts and provide reasons for decisions to enable meaningful reconsideration (Lab. Code, §§ 5502, 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761).
The WCJ failed to consider lien claimant's timely objection and did not provide a hearing, violating procedural requirements.
From the decision · page 3A WCJ is required to "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy
and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together
with the findings, decision, order, or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the
proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon
which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5502, 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761;
see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (Blackledge) (2010)
75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-622 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) The WCJ's opinion on decision
"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 v. Lockheed
Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton), citing Evans
v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].)
Decisions must be supported by substantial evidence (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d)).
The Board reviewed the record and found no basis for the Order Taking Off Calendar or Order for Costs due to lack of hearing and record.
From the decision · page 3Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code,
§ 5903, 5952(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. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35
Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) "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
Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151
Due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to present evidence (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151).
Lien claimant was entitled to a hearing after timely objection, which was not provided.
From the decision · page 4All 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].)
"Due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to present evidence in regards to the
issues." (Rea v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 625, 643 [70
Cal.Comp.Cases 312]; see also Fortich v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d
1449, 1452-1454 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 537].) 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 v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 710 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].)
Liberal pleading rules apply; technical defects do not deprive Board of jurisdiction (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 452, 473; Lab. Code, § 5709; WCAB Rule 10617).
The Board emphasized adjudication on merits over technical defects, rejecting defendant's argument about wrong case number filing.
From the decision · page 6that the Act disfavors application of formalistic rules of procedure that would defeat an employee's
entitlement to rehabilitation benefits." (Martino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (2002) 103 Cal.
App. 4th 485, 490 [67 Cal. Comp. Cases 1273].) Courts have repeatedly rejected pleading
technicalities as grounds for depriving the Board of jurisdiction. (Rubio v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 196, 200§ 01 [50 Cal. Comp. Cases 160]; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 109 Cal. App. 3d 148, 152§ 153 [45 Cal. Comp. Cases 866].)
Moreover, section 5709 states that "[n]o informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking
testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in this
division..." (Lab. Code, § 5709.) "Necessarily, failure to comply with the rules as to details is not
jurisdictional." (Rubio, supra, at pp. 200§ 201; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10492, now
§ 10517.)