ADJ19257864 · October 14, 2024

The Appeals Board found the record incomplete, lacking key exhibits and transcripts, preventing meaningful review and due process.

From the decision · page 3Currently, while we received the aforementioned Report of May 7, 2024, and are in receipt of the WCA's Findings and Award, the transcript of proceedings (Transcript), as well as several medical reports from Omar Tirmizi, M.D. and Clive Segil, M.D., the record still does not include applicant's deposition transcript, the reports of Dr. Bakshian, as well as most of applicant's exhibits, and all of defendant's exhibits.

The record before the Appeals Board was incomplete, lacking applicant's deposition transcript, the reports of Dr. Bakshian, most of applicant's exhibits, and all of defendant's exhibits.

Favours neutral

Without a complete record, the Board could not conduct meaningful review or ensure due process, requiring remand.

From the decision · page 3Currently, while we received the aforementioned Report of May 7, 2024, and are in receipt of the WCA's Findings and Award, the transcript of proceedings (Transcript), as well as several medical reports from Omar Tirmizi, M.D. and Clive Segil, M.D., the record still does not include applicant's deposition transcript, the reports of Dr. Bakshian, as well as most of applicant's exhibits, and all of defendant's exhibits.

Barri v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 428; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151; Fremont Indem. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 965; Ogden Entertainment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Von Ritzhoff) (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 970; San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703; Lab. Code, § 5952(a), (c)

The Appeals Board may not ignore due process for the sake of expediency; due process requires a meaningful consideration of the merits of every case de novo with a well-reasoned decision based on the evidentiary record and the relevant law.

The Board found that without a complete record, due process and meaningful review are not possible, requiring remand.

From the decision · page 3The Appeals Board may not ignore due process for the sake of expediency. (Barri v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 428, 469 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1643] [claimants in workers' compensation proceedings are not denied due process when proceedings are delayed in order to ensure compliance with the mandate to accomplish substantial justice]; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805] [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].) "Even though workers' compensation matters are to be handled expeditiously by the Board and its trial judges, administrative efficiency at the expense of due process is not permissible." (Fremont Indem. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 965, 971 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 288]; see Ogden Entertainment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Von Ritzhoff) (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].)

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (en banc); Lewis v. Arlie Rogers & Sons (2003) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 490; Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753

An arbitrator's decision must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence. Meaningful review requires an ascertainable and adequate record, including identification of evidence submitted and admitted or denied.

The Board could not conduct meaningful review due to the incomplete record, so remand was required.

From the decision · page 4As with a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), an arbitrator's decision must be based on admitted evidence and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Meaningful review of an arbitrator's decision requires that the "decision be based on an ascertainable and adequate record," including "an orderly identification in the record of the evidence submitted by a party; and what evidence is admitted or denied admission." (Lewis v. Arlie Rogers & Sons (2003) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 490, 494, emphasis in original.) "An organized evidentiary record assists an arbitrator in rendering a decision, informs the parties what evidence will be utilized by the arbitrator in making a determination, preserves the rights of parties to object to proffered evidence, and affords meaningful review by the Board, or reviewing tribunal." (Id.; see also Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753 [a full and complete record allows for a meaningful right of reconsideration].)

The record did not include applicant's deposition transcript, the reports of Dr. Bakshian, most of applicant's exhibits, and all of defendant's exhibits, making the record incomplete.

From the decision · page 3Currently, while we received the aforementioned Report of May 7, 2024, and are in receipt of the WCA's Findings and Award, the transcript of proceedings (Transcript), as well as several medical reports from Omar Tirmizi, M.D. and Clive Segil, M.D., the record still does not include applicant's deposition transcript, the reports of Dr. Bakshian, as well as most of applicant's exhibits, and all of defendant's exhibits.