ADJ10275231 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

December 8, 2020 Order Reducing Lien and Order to Pay Lien Claim rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision by WCJ.

Petition for Reconsideration filed challenging the Order Reducing Lien and Order to Pay Lien Claim dated December 8, 2020; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

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 / removalRemanded

The WCJ's decision lacked a proper evidentiary record and did not meet due process requirements, so the Board rescinded the order and returned the matter for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 2DISCUSSION 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] (Rucker).) A fair hearing is "one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant...." (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, "the commission...must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, - in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law." (Id. at p. 577.) 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, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

No evidence of a settlement agreement was in the record, such as a stipulation signed by the parties.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without evidence of agreement, the Board could not uphold the WCJ's order reducing the lien.

From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ avers that "an agreement was reached for settlement." (Report at p. 1.) However, there is no evidence of such an agreement in the record such as a stipulation signed by the parties. Moreover, the WCJ's brief handwritten notes in the December 8, 2020 Minute Order do not meet the due process requirements discussed above. Ultimately, there is no record upon which to address the dispute raised by the Petition for Reconsideration and, without an evidentiary record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we will rescind the WCJ's decision and return this matter to the trial level. Any party may file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) to put this matter back on calendar.

The WCJ's handwritten notes did not meet due process requirements for a fair hearing.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The lack of a proper record prevented the Board from determining if the WCJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ avers that "an agreement was reached for settlement." (Report at p. 1.) However, there is no evidence of such an agreement in the record such as a stipulation signed by the parties. Moreover, the WCJ's brief handwritten notes in the December 8, 2020 Minute Order do not meet the due process requirements discussed above. Ultimately, there is no record upon which to address the dispute raised by the Petition for Reconsideration and, without an evidentiary record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we will rescind the WCJ's decision and return this matter to the trial level. Any party may file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) to put this matter back on calendar.

The rules the panel named

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

Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151

Due process requires a fair hearing including the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses, introduce and inspect exhibits, and offer evidence in rebuttal.

The Board found the WCJ's decision did not meet due process requirements due to lack of evidentiary record.

From the decision · page 2DISCUSSION 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] (Rucker).) A fair hearing is "one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant...." (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, "the commission...must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, - in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law." (Id. at p. 577.) 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, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp.

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

The WCJ must make findings on all facts involved and base decisions on admitted evidence supported by substantial evidence.

The Board noted the WCJ's decision lacked a record of admitted evidence and substantial evidence support.

From the decision · page 2157-158.) Additionally, section 5313 requires the WCJ to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and [make and file] an award, order or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties... [and include] a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made...." The WCJ's decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 478 (Appeals Board en banc), and the decision 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. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) In Hamilton, we held that the record of proceedings must contain,

ADJ10275231 · October 24, 2022

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

About this page