Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 5500.5
The Appeals Board's jurisdiction includes amending awards if a timely petition for contribution is filed.
The WCJ's finding on liability pursuant to Section 5500.5 exceeded authority as it was not raised at trial and can be addressed in supplemental proceedings.
From the decision · page 7Similarly, the WCJ's finding of fact regarding the liability of defendants pursuant to
Section 5500.5 exceeds the WCJ's authority because the WCJ determined an issue that was not
raised at trial. In fact, apportioning liability between defendants is unnecessary to the adjudication
of applicant's case and could be addressed in supplemental arbitration proceedings if necessary.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903, Cal. Code Regs., 10605(a)(1)
To be timely, a petition for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of service of the final order, plus 5 days if service is by mail in California.
North River's petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed one day late.
From the decision · page 2As an initial matter, to be timely, a petition for reconsideration must be filed and received
by the Appeals Board within 20 days of the service of the final order, plus an additional five days
if service of the decision is by any method other than personal service, including by e-mail or mail,
upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903, Cal. Code Regs., 10605(a)(1)
[formerly 10508].) Because December has 31 days and the defendant was served by mail in
California, North River's petition is a day late. Therefore, we will dismiss it.
Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 789 [59 Cal.Comp.Cases 461]
All parties in workers' compensation cases are entitled to due process, including notice and opportunity to be heard before issues are decided.
The WCJ exceeded authority by deciding issues not submitted at trial, violating due process rights.
From the decision · page 4As we will explain further below, we are rescinding the December 20, 2019 decision
because, in addition to the inconsistency between the Findings and Award and the Opinion on
Decision noted above, the WCJ exceeded his authority by determining issues that were not
submitted at trial. Of particular importance, applicant's date of injury was not submitted as an issue
for decision in ADJ8578580. Because applicant has not elected against a defendant in
ADJ8578580 and both defendants are parties, assigning a new date of injury may impact which
insurer or insurers pay the award. All parties in workers' compensation cases are entitled to due
process. (Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 26
Cal.App.4th 789 [59 Cal.Comp.Cases 461].) As a result of the procedural defects, we will rescind
the Findings and Award and return the matter to the trial level for a new decision.
Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]
Determining an issue without notice and opportunity to be heard violates due process.
The WCJ erred by determining the date of injury and liability issues not raised at trial.
From the decision · page 7A determination regarding an applicant's date of injury pursuant to Section 5412 may
change the liability determination pursuant to Section 5500.5. While the WCJ's reasoning for
rejecting the stipulation appears sound, it was error to determine an issue not raised at trial.
Determining an issue without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard violates the
parties' rights to due process. (Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th
1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584] citing Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82
Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158.)