What the panel ordered
The February 14, 2020 Findings and Order and Decision is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.
Reconsideration of arbitrator's Findings and Order and Decision dated February 14, 2020, regarding apportionment and reimbursement between defendants.
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 arbitrator's decision was not supported by an adequate evidentiary record, as required by statute and regulation, making it impossible for the Appeals Board to evaluate the basis for the findings and order. The matter must be remanded for further proceedings with a proper record.
From the decision · page 6(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914, emphasis added.) Lowe's Petition extensively references a transcript of applicant's testimony, taken January 4, 2005, but the transcript is not in the record. (Petition, pp. 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20.) In the absence of an evidentiary record, we are unable to evaluate the basis of the arbitrator's F&O. Therefore, we must return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. Because further proceedings will be conducted after January 1, 2020, the arbitrator and parties should consult WCAB Rules 10914 and 10995 for guidance on the requirements of an arbitration record and petitions for reconsideration from an arbitrator's decision. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 10914, 10995.) Accordingly, we rescind the February 14, 2020 F&O, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The transcript of applicant's testimony, which was referenced in the petition, was not included in the record, making it impossible to evaluate the arbitrator's findings.
Favours neutral
Without the transcript and a complete evidentiary record, the Appeals Board could not review the basis for the arbitrator's decision, necessitating remand.
From the decision · page 6(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914, emphasis added.) Lowe's Petition extensively references a transcript of applicant's testimony, taken January 4, 2005, but the transcript is not in the record. (Petition, pp. 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20.) In the absence of an evidentiary record, we are unable to evaluate the basis of the arbitrator's F&O. Therefore, we must return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. Because further proceedings will be conducted after January 1, 2020, the arbitrator and parties should consult WCAB Rules 10914 and 10995 for guidance on the requirements of an arbitration record and petitions for reconsideration from an arbitrator's decision. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 10914, 10995.) Accordingly, we rescind the February 14, 2020 F&O, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (en banc)
An arbitrator's decision must be based on admitted evidence and must include a summary of the evidence received and relied upon, and the reasons or grounds for the determination.
The arbitrator's decision lacked an adequate evidentiary record and summary, requiring remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 4The arbitrator is also required to prepare an opinion on decision, setting forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on. (Lab. Code § 5313; Hamilton, supra, at 476.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "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].) In Hamilton, we held that the record of proceeding must contain, at a minimum, "the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and the admitted evidence." (Hamilton, supra, at 477; see Lab. Code, § 5313.) We also noted that "the Labor Code and the Board's rules contain explicit instructions concerning the contents of the record of a case. It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record." (Hamilton, supra, at 477.)
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (en banc)
The record of proceeding must contain, at a minimum, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and the admitted evidence.
The record was incomplete, lacking the transcript and other required elements, so the matter was remanded.
From the decision · page 4The arbitrator is also required to prepare an opinion on decision, setting forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on. (Lab. Code § 5313; Hamilton, supra, at 476.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "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].) In Hamilton, we held that the record of proceeding must contain, at a minimum, "the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and the admitted evidence." (Hamilton, supra, at 477; see Lab. Code, § 5313.) We also noted that "the Labor Code and the Board's rules contain explicit instructions concerning the contents of the record of a case. It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record." (Hamilton, supra, at 477.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The transcript of applicant's testimony, referenced by Lowe's, was not in the record, preventing evaluation of the arbitrator's findings.
From the decision · page 6(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10914, emphasis added.) Lowe's Petition extensively references a transcript of applicant's testimony, taken January 4, 2005, but the transcript is not in the record. (Petition, pp. 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20.) In the absence of an evidentiary record, we are unable to evaluate the basis of the arbitrator's F&O. Therefore, we must return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings. Because further proceedings will be conducted after January 1, 2020, the arbitrator and parties should consult WCAB Rules 10914 and 10995 for guidance on the requirements of an arbitration record and petitions for reconsideration from an arbitrator's decision. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 10914, 10995.) Accordingly, we rescind the February 14, 2020 F&O, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
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.