Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5803
The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction and may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause (Lab. Code, 5803).
The Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the petition as premature due to insufficient evidence and procedural issues.
From the decision · page 3"The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards
made and entered under the provisions of [Division 4]... At any time, upon notice and after the
opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or
amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor."4 (Lab. Code, § 5803.)5
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10700(b)
The Board must inquire into the adequacy of all Compromise and Release agreements and may set the matter for hearing to take evidence when necessary (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10700(b)).
The Board found the record insufficient and recommended a hearing to assess the settlement adequacy and applicant's intent.
From the decision · page 4"The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board shall inquire into the adequacy of all
Compromise and Release agreements and Stipulations with Request for Award, and may set the
matter for hearing to take evidence when necessary to determine whether the agreement should be
approved or disapproved, or issue findings and awards." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10700(b) (eff.
Jan. 1, 2020).) Although the WCJ states here that "[a]pplicant has been advised and understands
that the existing record is not sufficient to determine whether the settlement is adequate...," there
is no evidence in the record regarding who advised applicant about the record, nor is there evidence
in the record regarding how the WCJ was aware of what applicant knew or understood and what
applicant was told with respect to the adequacy of the settlement. Because no hearing was held,
the WCJ did not have the opportunity to assess applicant's understanding of the proposed
settlement agreement. Moreover, the parties submitted minimal medical evidence, as noted by the
WCJ. Consequently, the record is insufficient, both as to the issue of whether applicant wished to
withdraw from his agreement and whether the settlement was adequate.
Lab. Code, 4060-4062.3
An unrepresented employee requires a QME evaluation to determine compensability and extent of permanent impairment (Lab. Code, 4060-4062.3).
The Board noted the need for a QME evaluation for the unrepresented applicant to determine compensability and impairment.
From the decision · page 4Thus, the determination of compensability, the existence or extent of permanent
impairment, and limitations, if any, resulting from an injury all require a medical evaluation. As
an unrepresented employee, applicant would require an evaluation by a QME, as opposed to a
treating physician or agreed medical evaluator, to determine compensability, if any, and the
existence or extent of permanent impairment. (Lab. Code, § 4060-4062.3.)
Lab. Code, 5903, 5952(d)
A WCJ's decision must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence (Lab. Code, 5903, 5952(d); Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001)).
The Board emphasized the requirement for substantial evidence and a complete record for decision-making.
From the decision · page 4A WCJ's decision must be based on admitted evidence and must be supported by
substantial evidence (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952 (d); Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66
Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
(Garza) (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]). "It is the responsibility of the parties and the
WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record. At
a minimum, the record must contain, in properly organized form, the issues submitted for decision,
the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence." (Hamilton, supra, at p.
475.) Sections 5701 and 5906 "authorize the WCJ and the Board to obtain additional evidence,
Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151
Due process requires a fair hearing including the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses and present evidence (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000)).
The Board found that no hearing was held, denying the applicant a fair hearing and due process.
From the decision · page 5Further, all parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to
due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].)
A fair hearing is "... one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant..." (Id. at
p. 158.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572,
"the commission,... must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, -- in short, it
acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this
cannot be done except after due process of law." (Id. at p. 577.) A fair hearing includes but is not
limited to the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and
to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89
Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker, supra, at pp. 157-158 citing Kaiser
Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21];
Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 710 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].)