What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted, Findings of Fact and Order rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
Petition for Reconsideration granted, Findings of Fact and Order of May 1, 2024 rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings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 parties did not enter the contract into evidence and defendant did not provide evidence of mutual mistake; the record was insufficient to evaluate this issue.
From the decision · page 5In addition to the sanctions, the WCJ also found that the real party in interest should be Central Coast Interpreters, which did not and does not exist on its own with its own Tax ID number; that there was mutual mistake of material fact, and thus, the contracts for interpreting services rendered on January 13, 2015 and April 10, 2015 are voided; and that defendants did not owe cost petitioner any costs pursuant to section 5811. (F&O, p. 2.) However, the parties did not enter the contract into evidence and defendant did not provide any evidence or testimony that there was a mutual mistake of fact.
The WCJ imposed sanctions without appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard, violating due process, and the record was insufficient to support sanctions.
From the decision · page 5notice 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, supra, at pp. 157-158.) Due process requires "a `hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265, quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.) Although due process is "a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors," it generally requires the right to present relevant evidence. (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817.) The WCJ imposed sanctions without appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard and in violation of defendant's right of due process. (Lab. Code, § 5813(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10832(a)(3).)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ imposed sanctions without notice and opportunity to be heard
Favours Applicant prevailed
This violated defendant's due process rights and rendered the sanctions improper.
From the decision · page 5notice 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, supra, at pp. 157-158.) Due process requires "a `hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265, quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.) Although due process is "a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors," it generally requires the right to present relevant evidence. (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817.) The WCJ imposed sanctions without appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard and in violation of defendant's right of due process. (Lab. Code, § 5813(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10832(a)(3).)
Parties did not enter contracts into evidence and defendant did not provide evidence of mutual mistake
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of evidence made the finding of mutual mistake and voiding contracts unsupported.
From the decision · page 5In addition to the sanctions, the WCJ also found that the real party in interest should be Central Coast Interpreters, which did not and does not exist on its own with its own Tax ID number; that there was mutual mistake of material fact, and thus, the contracts for interpreting services rendered on January 13, 2015 and April 10, 2015 are voided; and that defendants did not owe cost petitioner any costs pursuant to section 5811. (F&O, p. 2.) However, the parties did not enter the contract into evidence and defendant did not provide any evidence or testimony that there was a mutual mistake of fact.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10832(a)(3)
Sanctions require notice and opportunity to be heard to satisfy due process under Labor Code section 5813 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a) and 10832(a)(3)
The WCJ imposed sanctions without notice and opportunity to be heard, violating due process rights.
From the decision · page 5notice 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, supra, at pp. 157-158.) Due process requires "a `hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265, quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.) Although due process is "a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors," it generally requires the right to present relevant evidence. (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817.) The WCJ imposed sanctions without appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard and in violation of defendant's right of due process. (Lab. Code, § 5813(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10832(a)(3).)
Labor Code sections 5903, 5952(d); Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159
Decisions must be supported by substantial evidence and an adequate record under Labor Code sections 5903, 5952(d) and case law
The record lacked sufficient evidence to support the finding of mutual mistake of fact and voiding contracts.
From the decision · page 5In addition to the sanctions, the WCJ also found that the real party in interest should be Central Coast Interpreters, which did not and does not exist on its own with its own Tax ID number; that there was mutual mistake of material fact, and thus, the contracts for interpreting services rendered on January 13, 2015 and April 10, 2015 are voided; and that defendants did not owe cost petitioner any costs pursuant to section 5811. (F&O, p. 2.) However, the parties did not enter the contract into evidence and defendant did not provide any evidence or testimony that there was a mutual mistake of fact.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ imposed sanctions without notice and opportunity to be heard, violating due process rights
From the decision · page 5notice 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, supra, at pp. 157-158.) Due process requires "a `hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265, quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.) Although due process is "a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors," it generally requires the right to present relevant evidence. (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817.) The WCJ imposed sanctions without appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard and in violation of defendant's right of due process. (Lab. Code, § 5813(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10832(a)(3).)
Parties did not enter contracts into evidence and defendant did not provide evidence of mutual mistake of fact
From the decision · page 5In addition to the sanctions, the WCJ also found that the real party in interest should be Central Coast Interpreters, which did not and does not exist on its own with its own Tax ID number; that there was mutual mistake of material fact, and thus, the contracts for interpreting services rendered on January 13, 2015 and April 10, 2015 are voided; and that defendants did not owe cost petitioner any costs pursuant to section 5811. (F&O, p. 2.) However, the parties did not enter the contract into evidence and defendant did not provide any evidence or testimony that there was a mutual mistake of fact.
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.