What the panel ordered
The WCAB vacated its prior grant of reconsideration and dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as premature, returning the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the Petition as a set aside request with opportunity for hearing and evidence.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration seeking to set aside a Joint Order Approving Compromise and Release; the WCJ issued a Report recommending denial; the WCAB granted reconsideration to study issues further but now vacates that grant and dismisses the Petition as premature, returning the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
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.
The Petition was dismissed as premature because no evidence was admitted to support the Applicant's allegations, and due process requires a hearing with evidence before setting aside the settlement agreement.
From the decision · page 3As the moving party, Applicant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, he should be relieved from the settlement agreement he 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"].) Applicant seeks to set aside the Order but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding his allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate Applicant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No evidence was admitted into the record to support Applicant's allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without evidence, the Board could not evaluate the Petition and dismissed it as premature.
From the decision · page 3As the moving party, Applicant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, he should be relieved from the settlement agreement he 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"].) Applicant seeks to set aside the Order but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding his allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate Applicant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5803
The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction and may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause (Labor Code section 5803).
The Board vacated its prior grant of reconsideration and dismissed the Petition as premature due to lack of evidence.
From the decision · page 2Pursuant to Labor Code section 5803, "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."
County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114
Stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown to withdraw (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114).
Applicant failed to provide evidence to show good cause to withdraw from the settlement agreement.
From the decision · page 2Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) As defined in Weatherall, "A stipulation is `An agreement between opposing counsel... ordinarily entered into for the purpose of avoiding delay, trouble, or expense in the conduct of the action,' (Ballentine, Law Dict. (1930) p. 1235, col. 2) and serves `to obviate need for proof or to narrow range of litigable issues' (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 1415, col. 1) in a legal proceeding." (Weatherall, supra, at 1118.)
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473
Decisions must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473).
The Petition was dismissed as premature because no evidence was admitted to support the Applicant's allegations.
From the decision · page 3As explained in Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350-351], a decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Id. at p. 478) and must be supported by substantial evidence. (§ 5903, 5952, subd. (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].) Aside from providing assurance that due process is being provided, this "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidence admitted to support Applicant's allegations in the Petition for Reconsideration
From the decision · page 3As the moving party, Applicant has the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, he should be relieved from the settlement agreement he 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"].) Applicant seeks to set aside the Order but no evidence has been admitted into the record regarding his allegations. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to evaluate Applicant's contentions. The Petition is therefore premature.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.