ADJ12980584 — California WCAB decision

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.

Permanent disability ratingApplicant prevailed

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The WCJ found applicant was not a seasonal worker, a finding accepted and unchallenged by the parties.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supports that the statutory maximum PD rate applies, not the minimum for seasonal workers.

From the decision · page 5Here, before directly considering the stipulation, we must step back and consider what the parties were litigating in this case. Specifically, the parties submitted to the WCJ for decision the issue of whether defendant had overpaid TTD. Defendant's argument was predicated upon the theory that applicant was a seasonal worker, and therefore that TTD payments were not due during the off-season. (See Jimenez v. San Joaquin Valley Labor, Superior Nat'l Ins. Co. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 74 (en banc).) Exhibits were submitted on this point, and applicant provided testimony clearly aimed at determining whether he was in fact a seasonal worker. (See J. Exs. B1 B3; MOH/SOE 4/13/2023 at p. 8.) The WCJ's conclusion that applicant was not a seasonal worker was not challenged by either party during any of the extended proceedings following the issuance of the First F&A, and was implicitly accepted by the parties at the second trial on December 5, 2023 when they stipulated to the findings of the First F&A. (MOH/SOE, 12/5/2023, at p. 2, § 3.)

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114

Stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown to set aside (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000))

From the decision · page 4Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) As defined in Weatherall, "A stipulation is `An agreement between opposing counsel... ordinarily entered into for the purpose of avoiding delay, trouble, or expense in the conduct of the action,' (Ballentine, Law Dict. (1930) p. 1235, col. 2) and serves `to obviate need for proof or to narrow range of litigable issues' (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 1415, col. 1) in a legal proceeding." (Weatherall, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 1119.)

Labor Code section 5702

Labor Code section 5702 authorizes the Board to set aside stipulations for good cause

The Board relied on this statute to find good cause to set aside the stipulation inconsistent with statutory PD rate computation.

McCarthy v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 106

Parties cannot stipulate to a PD rate that circumvents statutory law (McCarthy v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (2009))

The Board cited this case to support that stipulations cannot override statutory PD rate calculations.

From the decision · page 5If the stipulation represented a mutual mistake of law, it would be properly set aside upon request, based upon the authorities cited above. If the stipulation represented an attempt to stipulate to a PD rate that is statutorily unauthorized, the WCJ would have been required to set it aside, because parties "cannot stipulate to circumvent a legislatively designated code section as the exclusive statutory vehicle." (McCarthy v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 106,

ADJ12980584 · April 30, 2024

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page