What the panel ordered
The WCAB affirmed the Findings and Award except it amended the Finding of Fact number 3 to defer the alter ego issue and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the decision after reconsideration.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on May 14, 2020, challenging the WCJ's finding that the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil in a Labor Code section 132a proceeding. The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the issues and now returns the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on the alter ego issue.
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 WCAB found that the WCJ lacked jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil in a section 132a proceeding and therefore deferred the alter ego issue for further trial proceedings to ensure due process and a fair hearing.
From the decision · page 8However, the WCJ found that the WCAB had no authority to "pierce the corporate veil," i.e., to apply the alter ego doctrine. (F&A, Finding no. 3.) Therefore, the WCJ did not consider all the evidence and issue findings of fact regarding whether or not Krgatbashian sufficiently controlled Rancho and/or whether application of the alter ego doctrine is warranted to prevent an injustice against applicant under the circumstances of this case. Given that all parties are entitled to due process and a fair hearing, we cannot interpose our own findings on the issue without running afoul of the parties' rights to due process (Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584] citing Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158).