What the panel ordered
April 4, 2019 Findings and Order is rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings consistent with WCAB opinion after reconsideration.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant after April 4, 2019 Findings and Order denying entitlement to SJDB voucher; WCJ Report recommended denial of Petition; WCAB granted reconsideration and issued decision rescinding April 4, 2019 Findings and Order and returning matter to trial level 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 WCAB found it unclear whether the SJDB voucher was in dispute or subject to settlement at the time of the Compromise and Release, and that applicant was not aware he was settling the voucher, warranting further proceedings.
From the decision · page 5The April 4, 2019 Findings and Order does not take into account these facts. It simply points to the Compromise and Release to show that the parties settled the voucher. However, given the facts above, it is unclear whether the voucher in question was in dispute at the time of the Compromise and Release and therefore subject to settlement. It is also troubling that applicant was not present at trial and claims he did not understand he was settling his entitlement to the voucher. For these reasons, we rescind the April 4, 2019 Findings and Order and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Compromise and Release indicated the SJDB voucher was being settled, but it was unclear whether the voucher was in dispute or subject to settlement at that time.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This uncertainty undermined the basis for the April 4, 2019 Findings and Order that the voucher was settled, leading to rescission and remand.
From the decision · page 5The April 4, 2019 Findings and Order does not take into account these facts. It simply points to the Compromise and Release to show that the parties settled the voucher. However, given the facts above, it is unclear whether the voucher in question was in dispute at the time of the Compromise and Release and therefore subject to settlement. It is also troubling that applicant was not present at trial and claims he did not understand he was settling his entitlement to the voucher. For these reasons, we rescind the April 4, 2019 Findings and Order and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Applicant was not present at the March 19, 2019 trial and claims he did not understand he was settling his entitlement to the voucher.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Applicant's lack of awareness and absence at trial raised concerns about the fairness and validity of the settlement, supporting remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 4Furthermore, applicant claims that he was not aware that he was settling his SJDB voucher and claims that he was not present at the March 19, 2019 trial, which his former attorney later confirmed, even though the Minutes of Hearing reflect that he was present but not in the courtroom. (Petition, Addendum to Petition, § 1-2; Glauber Answer, 3:3-7, § 11; Minutes of Hearing dated March 19, 2019, p. 2:2-4.) No testimony was taken at trial and the only exhibit admitted was the February 8, 2016 Compromise and Release. (Minutes of Hearing dated March 19, 2019.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5313
Labor Code section 5313 requires the WCJ to make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and state the reasons or grounds for the determination.
The WCJ's April 4, 2019 Findings and Order did not adequately address the factual uncertainties regarding the SJDB voucher settlement, necessitating reconsideration and remand.
From the decision · page 3Labor Code2 section 5313 requires the WCJ to,
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's claim that he was not aware he was settling his SJDB voucher and was not present at trial, supported by his former attorney's confirmation and Minutes of Hearing.
From the decision · page 4Furthermore, applicant claims that he was not aware that he was settling his SJDB voucher and claims that he was not present at the March 19, 2019 trial, which his former attorney later confirmed, even though the Minutes of Hearing reflect that he was present but not in the courtroom. (Petition, Addendum to Petition, § 1-2; Glauber Answer, 3:3-7, § 11; Minutes of Hearing dated March 19, 2019, p. 2:2-4.) No testimony was taken at trial and the only exhibit admitted was the February 8, 2016 Compromise and Release. (Minutes of Hearing dated March 19, 2019.)
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.