ADJ15448165 — California WCAB decision

ADJ15448165 · March 21, 2024

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.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

San Diego

What the panel ordered

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.

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 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 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].)

ADJ15448165 · March 21, 2024

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

What proof carried it

About this page