Trials. 8 CCR § 10787

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10787, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ15999814 · 2025-06-24 · Fresno District Office8 CCR § 10787

  Determinative passage · p.3A second use of subrosa occurs where defendant seeks to impeach applicant's credibility through activities seen in the video, which defendant argues are incongruent with applicant's testimony or other evidence. In such cases the video is no longer being used as medical evidence, but instead it is being used as factual evidence of credibility, which requires that the video be in evidence and that the judge review it. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(c)(6); Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 478 (Appeals Board en banc); see also Morgan v. United States (1936) 298 U.S. 468, 481["The one who decides must hear."].) When deciding reconsideration, the Appeals Board is required "to achieve a substantial understanding of the record[.]" (Allied Compensation Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1961) 57 Cal.2d 115, 120.)

  The court reviewed the subrosa video and found it was not relevant for impeachment as defendant failed to show contradiction with applicant's statements.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ16751654 · 2024-09-25 · Fresno District Office8 CCR § 10787

  Determinative passage · p.4Decisions 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].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) "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 contain, in properly organized form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).)

  The WCJ's order lacked evidentiary support and did not specify specialties, violating these standards.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ13205888 · 2024-05-24 · Long Beach District Office8 CCR § 10787

  Determinative passage · p.2Further, decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476

  The WCAB referenced these requirements in evaluating whether the WCJ's analysis and record were sufficient.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11228281 · 2024-04-16 · Fresno District Office8 CCR § 10787

  Determinative passage · p.2The WCJ's Report asserts that "Petitioners' contention that a judge must provide [a] rationale in every single decision is simply without merit." (Report, at p. 4.) However, we observe that decisions 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].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) "It is the responsibility of the parties and

  The WCJ's order lacked rationale and record, depriving petitioner of meaningful appeal and the Board of basis to review the decision.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ15336311 · 2024-02-15 · San Francisco District Office8 CCR § 10787

  Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION In its Petition for Reconsideration, defendant contends that the WCJ's award is defective because it did not address EDD's lien claim. Upon review, we agree with the WCJ's stance in her Report that the issue of EDD's lien claim was deferred, as it was not raised and adjudicated at the trial level. (Report, p. 3.) The rationale is this: EDD's lien claim was identified as an issue in the PTCS; however, because the parties did not yet raise and adjudicate the issue, it must be deferred and tried separately, at which point the WCJ will render a decision so as to ensure full adjudication of the case. (Cal. Code

  Applied to support deferral of the EDD lien claim issue as it was not raised or adjudicated at trial.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ13302605 · 2023-03-07 · Santa Ana District Office8 CCR § 10787

  Determinative passage · p.3While the parties to a matter are generally expected to "submit for decision all matters properly in issue at a single trial," the WCJ may also order that the issues in a case be "bifurcated and tried separately upon a showing of good cause." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(a).)

  Applied to find good cause for bifurcation of jurisdictional issues.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12041587 · 2022-10-31 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10787

  Determinative passage · p.3prescribed and approved by the Appeals Board and shall be served on the parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10759(b), (e) (amended as of January 1, 2022.) Here a WCJ issued an order at the May 3, 2022 mandatory settlement conference, which states that: "Parties are to file PTCS in 20 days." The matter was then set for trial on June 27, 2022, before a different WCJ. The parties appeared, but due to ongoing settlement negotiations, trial was continued to August 24, 2022. Yet, when the parties appeared on August 24, 2022, applicant had not yet participated in preparing the PTCS. All parties are expected to comply with orders by a WCJ and by the Appeals Board, and if they are unable to comply, they must seek the appropriate relief. Parties are reminded that a willful failure to comply with an order could subject the offending party to sanctions. (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.) With respect to the notice of intention issued by the WCJ on August 30, 2022, the issue of sanctions may properly be heard at the time of trial in the case in chief, and a record can be created. (See Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc) [decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record"]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787, 10803.)

  The parties were reminded that failure to comply with orders could lead to sanctions, but the issue of sanctions was deferred to the trial in the case in chief.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10774501 · 2022-10-10 · San Francisco District Office8 CCR § 10787

  Determinative passage · p.6A WCJ has broad authority to issue orders to ensure proper adjudication of each claim, including "any interim, interlocutory and final orders, findings, decisions and awards as may be necessary to the full adjudication of the case." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10330.) This includes the authority to defer issues that the trier of fact determines are not ripe for adjudication. (See e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(a) [the WCJ may bifurcate the issues for trial and try them separately upon a showing of good cause].) It was consequently within the WCJ's authority to defer the issues of applicant's section 132a claim and the EDD lien.

  The WCJ properly deferred these issues as interlocutory matters without causing significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

  Official decision · page 6 →