Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396
Due process requires protection of parties' substantial rights including the right to introduce rebuttal evidence to impeach unanticipated testimony and to develop the record when a determinative issue arises during trial.
The WCJ's refusal to admit rebuttal evidence violated due process and required reconsideration and further development of the record.
From the decision · page 4of Labor Code section 5708, and by principles of due process, i.e., notice and a fair hearing. (See
Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 175 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 102];
Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases
805]; Pence v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 48, 51 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 207, 209].) 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].)
Lab. Code, 5708
Hearsay evidence is admissible in workers' compensation proceedings, with weight determined by the commission.
The rebuttal evidence included hearsay text messages which are admissible under this statute.
From the decision · page 32 Hearsay evidence is admissible in workers' compensation proceedings. (Lab. Code, § 5708; Pacific Emp. Ins. Co. v.
Ind. Acc. Com. (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 494, 499.) "The weight to be given hearsay evidence is to be determined by the
commission." (Id., at pp. 499§ 500.)
Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lauher) (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281
All reasonable doubts as to whether an injury arose out of employment are to be resolved in favor of the employee.
The issue of injury arising out of employment must be resolved in favor of the applicant where reasonable doubts exist.
From the decision · page 5The issue at trial in this matter was injury arising out of and in the course of employment
(AOE/COE) (Lab. Code, § 3600), "with defendants more specifically asserting that the injury is
not AOE/COE as it happened afterhours." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH),
June 9, 2025, p. 2.) Whether an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of his or her
employment "`is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances of the
particular case.'" (Melendez v. Ameron International Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 632 [80
Cal.Comp.Cases 1180] citing Wright v. Beverly Fabrics, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346, 353 [67
Cal.Comp.Cases 51].) All reasonable doubts as to whether an injury arose out of employment are
to be resolved in favor of the employee. (Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (Lauher) (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281, 1290§ 1291 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 831]; Price v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d at p. 565.)