Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d)
Decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence.
The Board emphasized the need for a complete and adequate record with substantial evidence to support decisions.
From the decision · page 3We are not able to provide meaningful review here because there is no record of
proceedings in these matters. It is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be
supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) "The term `substantial evidence' means evidence
which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion...It must
be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566],
emphasis removed and citations omitted.)
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc)
Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence in the record.
An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision.
From the decision · page 3Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the
record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476
(Appeals Board en banc).) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis
for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) "It is the
responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is
McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]
The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue.
The Board may not leave matters undeveloped where additional discovery is needed.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is
insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62
Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board has a constitutional
mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) The Board may not leave matters
undeveloped where it is clear that additional discovery is needed. (Id. at p. 404.) Moreover, while
the request for removal regarding the issue of the October 20, 2021 Order Taking Off Calendar
was previously denied, that denial does not prevent the same issue from being addressed on
reconsideration.1
WCAB Rule 10382
Joinder of parties pursuant to WCAB Rule 10382 is permissive rather than mandatory.
Joinder serves judicial economy and should be accomplished to the extent possible, but is not mandatory.
From the decision · page 4Turning to the issue of joinder, we note that the joinder of parties pursuant to WCAB Rule
103822 is permissive rather than mandatory, as evidenced by the word "may." It serves judicial
economy to join all parties "whose presence is necessary for the full adjudication of the case," and
such joinder should be accomplished to the extent that it is possible. However, despite the passage
of a significant amount of time and effort and several hearings, such joinder has not occurred in
these cases. The WCJ did not cite nor did we find any authority for the notion that applicant is the