ADJ9341618 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to allow applicant to provide evidence supporting his allegations.

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 / removalDefendant prevailedupper extremities · lower extremities · neck · back · chest · ribs · burns · internal system · psyche

The petition was dismissed because there was no evidence or testimony under oath admitted into the record regarding applicant's allegations, making the matter premature for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 3Applicant contends that the Order Approving improperly provided a deduction for permanent disability advances, which purportedly conflicts with the parties' settlement agreement. Applicant also contends that defendant improperly took a credit for permanent disability advances it had paid. However, there has been no evidence or testimony under oath admitted into the record regarding applicant's allegations, i.e., there is no evidence upon which we could base a decision and the matter is premature for reconsideration.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

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

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

Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence in the record (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473).

The Board found no evidence or testimony under oath admitted into the record regarding applicant's allegations, making the matter premature for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 2Additionally, decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Id. at p. 475; Lab. Code, § 5313.)

Lab. Code, 5803

The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards and may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause (Lab. Code, 5803).

The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration due to lack of evidence and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 2"The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the provisions of [Division 4]... At any time, upon notice and after the opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor." (Lab. Code, § 5803.)2

Lab. Code, 5702

The parties may stipulate facts and resolve claims by compromise and release, which is binding and has the force of a judgment (Lab. Code, 5702; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114; Burbank Studios v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Yount) (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 929; Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1160).

The Board emphasized the binding nature of compromise and release agreements and the need for evidence to support allegations challenging such agreements.

ADJ9341618 · February 23, 2021

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.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page