Allegations of Newly Discovered Evidence and Fraud. 8 CCR § 10974

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10974, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ10049929 · 2024-03-26 · San Jose District Office8 CCR § 10974

  Determinative passage · p.2Finally, as to the assertion of newly discovered evidence, we note that applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of WCAB Rule 10974, which provides:

  Applicant failed to comply with requirements for newly discovered evidence in petition for reconsideration

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ11292929 · 2024-03-18 · Sacramento District Office8 CCR § 10974

  Determinative passage · p.2The petition for reconsideration shall set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which the petitioner considers the final order, decision or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge to be unjust or unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the appeals board. The petition shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record and shall contain a general statement of any evidence or other matters upon which the applicant relies in support thereof. (emphasis added) (Lab. Code, § 5902.)

  The petition failed to state grounds with specificity or attach newly discovered evidence as required.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ1737668 · 2024-03-13 · Oxnard District Office8 CCR § 10974

  Determinative passage · p.4We begin our discussion by noting that the Petition describes "new discovery" and attaches nine documentary exhibits to the Petition. (Petition, at p. 2.) However, it is not clear from the petition whether lien claimant avers it is newly discovered evidence. To the extent the attachments to the petition are offered as newly discovered evidence, WCAB Rule 10974 provides that such evidence will only be considered on the grounds that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have been produced before submission of the case, or on the ground that the decision had been procured by fraud. (Cal Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10974.) Moreover, WCAB Rule 10974 requires that the petition contain an "offer of proof, specific and detailed" providing information as to the evidence to be offered, as well as a "full and accurate statement of the reasons why the testimony or exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered or produced before submission of the case." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10974(e).) Here, petitioner offers no explanation of why the attached documentation could not have been produced before submission of the case, or why such documentation was procured by fraud.

  The petition failed to provide the required offer of proof and explanation for newly discovered evidence, so the attachments were not considered.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11087566 · 2021-05-13 · Oakland District Office8 CCR § 10974

  Determinative passage · p.2Turning to defendant's contention that reconsideration should be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence, Labor Code section 5903(d) provides that a petitioner must demonstrate that "he or she could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced [the evidence] at the hearing." (Lab. Code, § 5903(d).) WCAB Rule 10974 states in part:

  Requirements for petitions for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ1082010 · 2021-03-30 · Oakland District Office8 CCR § 10974

  Determinative passage · p.3the...exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered or produced before submission of the case. A petition for reconsideration sought upon these grounds may be denied if it fails to meet the requirements of this rule, or if it is based upon cumulative evidence." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10974, WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.)

  Requires explanation for newly discovered evidence in reconsideration petitions.

  Official decision · page 3 →