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 withdraw them.
The Board applied this standard to evaluate the defendant's request to set aside the stipulation.
From the decision · page 2Stipulations 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
Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964
Good cause includes mutual mistake, duress, fraud, undue influence, and procedural irregularities.
The Board considered these factors in determining whether to set aside the stipulation.
From the decision · page 3"Good cause" to set aside an order or stipulations depends upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. "Good cause" includes mutual mistake of fact, duress, fraud, undue influence, and
procedural irregularities. (Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 964, 975
[35 Cal.Comp.Cases 362]; Santa Maria Bonita School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 848, 850 (writ den.); City of Beverly Hills v. Worker's Comp. Appeals
Bd. (Dowdle) (1997) 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 1691, 1692 (writ den.); Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1160, 1170 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 311] (writ den.).) To determine
whether there is good cause to rescind a stipulation, the circumstances surrounding its execution
and approval must be assessed. (See § 5702; Weatherall, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1118-1121;
Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Robinson) (1987) 199 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].)
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473
Decisions must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence.
The Board emphasized the need for evidence to support decisions and the requirement for due process.
From the decision · page 3As explained in Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476
[33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350-351], a decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Id.
at p. 478) and must be supported by substantial evidence. (§ 5903, 5952, subd. (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.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Aside from providing
assurance that due process is being provided, this "enables the parties, and the Board if
reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking
reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].)