ADJ14649350 · September 15, 2025

Applicant's December 23, 2024 Application was timely and should be treated as a Petition to Reopen for new and further disability. The WCJ erred by dismissing two case numbers and declining QME re-evaluation without an evidentiary hearing or record, denying applicant an opportunity to be heard.

From the decision · page 10Moreover, although the December 23, 2024 Application did not explicitly state that it was a Petition to Reopen, it clearly indicated that compensation had been paid, that applicant was claiming injury for additional body parts not compensated by the prior Stipulations, and that applicant had disputes with defendant regarding liability for reimbursement of medical expenses as well as liability for "pressure on forehead lesion/scar area not accepted with headaches as part of permanent disability." (12/23/24 Application, at pp. 4-5, case number ADJ20293644.) We are required to liberally construe the allegations in a petition, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) Thus, we conclude that applicant's December 23, 2024 Application was intended to serve as a Petition to Reopen pursuant to section 5410, and we will treat applicant's Application as a timely filed Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability.

Applicant's December 23, 2024 Application was filed less than five years from the date of injury and indicated a dispute over additional body parts and medical expenses.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This timely filing invoked the WCAB's continuing jurisdiction to reopen for new and further disability.

From the decision · page 9(6/16/22 Stipulations.) Applicant's Application in case number ADJ20293644 was filed on December 23, 2024, less than five years from the date of injury. Accordingly, the December 23,

The WCJ dismissed two case numbers and declined QME re-evaluation without admitting evidence or holding a hearing.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This denied applicant an opportunity to be heard and resulted in a decision unsupported by evidence, requiring rescission and remand.

From the decision · page 11Here, the June 9, 2025 proceeding was a status conference, during which no documentary evidence was admitted and no testimony was heard, and where the matter was taken off calendar. (6/9/25 MOH.) We cannot affirm the June 9, 2025 decision because, in addition to the order taking the matter off calendar, the WCJ issued additional findings and orders, including a finding that applicant's Petition to Reopen was "tolled/expired," an order that no new medical evaluation of applicant would be conducted, and orders dismissing two of applicant's cases when neither the December 23, 2024 Petition to Reopen, nor any other relevant documents, had been considered and/or admitted into evidence. (Ibid.) In addition, the WCJ's findings and orders were made without an evidentiary hearing, thus denying applicant an opportunity to be heard prior to the WCJ's issuing these findings and orders.

Lab. Code § 5410; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10536; Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 452; Bland v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 324

A petition to reopen for new and further disability must be timely filed within five years of the date of injury, and may be informal so long as it indicates an intent to pursue the case. Liberal construction is required.

Applicant's December 23, 2024 Application, though informal, was timely and sufficient to invoke WCAB jurisdiction to reopen for new and further disability.

From the decision · page 10Moreover, although the December 23, 2024 Application did not explicitly state that it was a Petition to Reopen, it clearly indicated that compensation had been paid, that applicant was claiming injury for additional body parts not compensated by the prior Stipulations, and that applicant had disputes with defendant regarding liability for reimbursement of medical expenses as well as liability for "pressure on forehead lesion/scar area not accepted with headaches as part of permanent disability." (12/23/24 Application, at pp. 4-5, case number ADJ20293644.) We are required to liberally construe the allegations in a petition, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) Thus, we conclude that applicant's December 23, 2024 Application was intended to serve as a Petition to Reopen pursuant to section 5410, and we will treat applicant's Application as a timely filed Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability.

Lab. Code § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

A decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and supported by substantial evidence. The WCJ must provide findings on all facts involved and a summary of the evidence relied upon.

The WCJ's decision was not based on an evidentiary record, so it could not be affirmed.

From the decision · page 11Here, the June 9, 2025 proceeding was a status conference, during which no documentary evidence was admitted and no testimony was heard, and where the matter was taken off calendar. (6/9/25 MOH.) We cannot affirm the June 9, 2025 decision because, in addition to the order taking the matter off calendar, the WCJ issued additional findings and orders, including a finding that applicant's Petition to Reopen was "tolled/expired," an order that no new medical evaluation of applicant would be conducted, and orders dismissing two of applicant's cases when neither the December 23, 2024 Petition to Reopen, nor any other relevant documents, had been considered and/or admitted into evidence. (Ibid.) In addition, the WCJ's findings and orders were made without an evidentiary hearing, thus denying applicant an opportunity to be heard prior to the WCJ's issuing these findings and orders.

No exhibits were entered into evidence, no testimony was admitted, and there was no summary of evidence received and relied upon at the June 9, 2025 proceeding.

From the decision · page 11Since no exhibits were entered into evidence, no testimony under oath was admitted into the record, and there was no summary of the evidence received and relied upon, there is no evidence upon which we could base a decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton, supra, at p. 476; Evans, supra, at p. 755.) Without an evidentiary record, we are unable to determine whether the WCJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, as required. (Hamilton, supra, at p. 476; Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb, supra, at pp. 280-281.) Therefore, we return this matter to the trial level for the WCJ to conduct an evidentiary hearing, provide the parties with an opportunity to be heard, and create a record upon which a decision can be made.