SIMILARCASE

Loading

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ12007786 · September 15, 2023

Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 0
Authorities named: 2
District office: Oakland

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant was dismissed as premature and the matter was returned to the 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 / removalDefendant prevailed

The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as premature because the record was insufficient to evaluate the contentions and further proceedings at the WCJ level were necessary.

From the decision · page 1Applicant, through an individual by the name of S. Yvonne Bailey,1 has filed a Petition for Reconsideration. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons below, we will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration as premature. We will then return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ set a status conference to determine whether further proceedings are necessary as discussed below.

The facts that decided it

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

Private workspace

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

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

ADJ12007786 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

The record was insufficient to evaluate Petitioner's contentions.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This lack of record prevented the Appeals Board from properly reviewing the Petition for Reconsideration, leading to dismissal as premature.

From the decision · page 3Here, in the absence of a record, we are unable to evaluate Petitioner's contentions. All parties in workers' compensation proceedings retain their 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].) 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, at 157-158 citing Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21]; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 710 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].)

All parties retain the right to due process and a fair hearing, including the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The Appeals Board emphasized the need for a fair hearing before reconsideration can be properly adjudicated, supporting dismissal as premature.

From the decision · page 3Here, in the absence of a record, we are unable to evaluate Petitioner's contentions. All parties in workers' compensation proceedings retain their 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].) 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, at 157-158 citing Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21]; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 710 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].)