Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5803
The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction and may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause.
From the decision · page 2While applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, it is clear that, in substance, applicant
seeks to set aside the WCJ's Stipulations Award, claiming that she possesses newly discovered
evidence regarding her injuries and that some elements of the stipulations, orders, decisions, and/or
award were procured by fraud. A petition to set aside the WCJ's Stipulations Award would be
based upon Labor Code section 5803,1 which reads, in pertinent part, "[t]he 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.) A Stipulations Award is an order
that may be reopened for "good cause" under section 5803. "Good cause" to set aside an order or
stipulations depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and includes mutual mistake
of fact, duress, fraud, undue influence, and procedural irregularities. (Johnson v. Workmen's
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964, 975 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 362].)
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5702
Parties must be given opportunity to present arguments and evidence at trial level before decision on good cause to rescind awards and stipulations.
From the decision · page 3has had the opportunity to present their arguments and any supporting evidence on this issue at the
trial level. (Lab. Code, § 5702; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 77
Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1] [to determine whether there is good cause
to rescind awards and stipulations, the circumstances surrounding their execution and approval
must be assessed].) Therefore, a Petition for Reconsideration is premature. As such, we will return
this matter to the trial level with a recommendation that the WCJ set a hearing so that applicant
can provide evidence in support of her "good cause" argument and create a record upon which a
decision can be made by the WCJ. We note that, as the moving party, applicant has the burden of
proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is good cause to relieve her from the
stipulations that she entered into with defendant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof
rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties
and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of
the evidence...."].)
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5705
The burden of proof rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue.
From the decision · page 3has had the opportunity to present their arguments and any supporting evidence on this issue at the
trial level. (Lab. Code, § 5702; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 77
Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1] [to determine whether there is good cause
to rescind awards and stipulations, the circumstances surrounding their execution and approval
must be assessed].) Therefore, a Petition for Reconsideration is premature. As such, we will return
this matter to the trial level with a recommendation that the WCJ set a hearing so that applicant
can provide evidence in support of her "good cause" argument and create a record upon which a
decision can be made by the WCJ. We note that, as the moving party, applicant has the burden of
proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is good cause to relieve her from the
stipulations that she entered into with defendant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof
rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties
and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of
the evidence...."].)
Labor Code
Labor Code section 3202.5
All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence.
From the decision · page 3has had the opportunity to present their arguments and any supporting evidence on this issue at the
trial level. (Lab. Code, § 5702; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 77
Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1] [to determine whether there is good cause
to rescind awards and stipulations, the circumstances surrounding their execution and approval
must be assessed].) Therefore, a Petition for Reconsideration is premature. As such, we will return
this matter to the trial level with a recommendation that the WCJ set a hearing so that applicant
can provide evidence in support of her "good cause" argument and create a record upon which a
decision can be made by the WCJ. We note that, as the moving party, applicant has the burden of
proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is good cause to relieve her from the
stipulations that she entered into with defendant. (See Lab. Code, § 5705 [the burden of proof
rests upon the party with the affirmative of the issue]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.5 ["All parties
and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of
the evidence...."].)
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5900
Order granting motion to be relieved as attorney is not a final order subject to reconsideration.
WCAB Rule 10955
A petition to remove counsel must be filed within 20 days after service of the order or decision.
California Code of Regulations
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955
Removal is granted only if petitioner shows significant prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 3Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]
(Cortez); Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70
Cal.Comp.Cases 133] (Kleemann).) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner
shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal.
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596
Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised and requires showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
From the decision · page 3Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]
(Cortez); Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70
Cal.Comp.Cases 133] (Kleemann).) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner
shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal.
Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal requires demonstration that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.
From the decision · page 3Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]
(Cortez); Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70
Cal.Comp.Cases 133] (Kleemann).) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner
shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal.