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 after notice and hearing (Lab. Code, 5803).
The WCAB exercised its jurisdiction to rescind the WCJ's orders due to lack of evidentiary record and due process violations.
From the decision · page 2DISCUSSION
"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
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10700(b)
The WCAB shall 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 WCAB found no evidentiary record to evaluate the settlement agreement and thus returned the matter for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 3"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).)
To determine whether there is good cause to rescind the awards and stipulations, the circumstances
surrounding their execution and approval must be assessed. (See Labor Code § 5702; County of
Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. AppealsBd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-
1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]; Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Robinson) (1987) 194
Cal.App.3d 784, 790-792 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419]; Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(Huston) (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 864-867 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) However, as
recognized in Weatherall, the Appeals Board may also, in its discretion, reject factual stipulations
and set the matter for hearing and further investigation. (Weatherall, supra, at p. 1119; Lab. Code,
§ 5702.)
Lab. Code, 5313
The WCJ must make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and refer to the evidence in the opinion on decision (Lab. Code, 5313).
The WCAB found the WCJ failed to make findings based on evidence, necessitating remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 4The statutory and regulatory duties of a WCJ include the issuance of a decision that
complies with Labor Code section 5313. An adequate and complete record is necessary to
understand the basis for the WCJ's decision and the WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon
all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation
(2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [2001 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Bd. en banc)2
(Hamilton).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with
the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating
the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at 475.) The purpose of this
requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the
basis for the decision[.]" (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].)
Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151
Due process requires notice of hearing and a fair hearing including the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.).
The WCAB found the lack of hearing deprived parties of due process, requiring rescission of the orders and remand.
From the decision · page 5Due process guarantees all parties the right to notice of hearing and a fair hearing. (Rucker,
supra, at 157-158.) 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 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].)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10349
The WCAB Rules allow issuing a notice of intention and setting matters for hearing if objections are filed (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10349).
The WCJ did not issue a Notice of Intention, thus depriving parties of the opportunity to object and request a hearing.
From the decision · page 5The WCAB Rules provide in relevant part that "The Workers' Compensation Appeals
Board may issue a notice of intention for any proper purpose...; [i]f an objection is filed within
the time provided, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, in its discretion may... [i]ssue an
order consistent with the notice of intention together with an opinion on decision; or... [s]et the
matter for hearing." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10349.) Here, the WCJ did not issue a Notice of
Intention, but rather issued the Orders without making a record at the hearing. Had the WCJ issued
a Notice of Intention, the aggrieved party could have objected and requested a hearing. If no party
objected, then the Order would become final.