ADJ424792 · September 7, 2023

The record was not adequately developed to determine the appropriate weekly rate of payment; the WCJ's prior finding that all payments were made was not sufficiently explained and was rescinded for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6Irrespective of these agreements, the parties proceeded to trial on July 10, 2018, framing the issue of clarification and enforcement of the Stipulated Award of January 8, 2008. (Minutes of Hearing, July 10, 2018, at 3:4.) The WCJ's September 7, 2018 Findings of Fact, Order, and Opinion on Decision explained that the original Stipulated Award provided was clear in its intended provision of benefits to be paid to the guardian ad litem until Destiny's 18th birthday. Based on this unequivocal language, the WCJ ordered that the UEBTF continue to pay the weekly death benefit to applicant until her 18th birthday, without regard to the commutation of attorney fees. (Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision, September 7, 2018, p. 2.)

The WCJ's prior finding that the UEBTF had paid all benefits owed to Destiny was not adequately explained in the record.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This lack of explanation led to the rescission of the prior Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision and the remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6Following our independent review of the record, however, we are concerned that the basis for this conclusion is not adequately explained in the record.

There was a discrepancy between applicant's assertion of entitlement to benefits at the maximum TTD rate and the UEBTF's payment of an amount equivalent to commuted attorney fees.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This discrepancy is central to the dispute over whether the UEBTF adequately paid all benefits owed.

From the decision · page 7Accordingly, the issue at bar appears to arise out of the discrepancy between applicant's assertions of a right to benefits at the maximum prevailing TTD rate, versus the UEBTF's payment of the exact amount of benefits that it had already commuted and paid as attorney fees.

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

The record of proceedings must contain issues submitted for decision, admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence to enable meaningful reconsideration.

The WCJ's opinion on decision must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record.

From the decision · page 7The Labor Code and the WCAB Rules set forth what must be included in a proper trial record. It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record of the proceedings contains at a minimum, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and the admitted evidence. (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 [2001 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).) The WCJ's opinion on decision "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." (Id. at p. 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].) "For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 476.)

Labor Code sections 4653, 4659, 4661.5, 4453(a)(10); Phillips v. Sacramento Municipal Utilities Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 585 (Appeals Board en banc)

Death benefit payments made two years or more after the date of injury must be made at the TD rate in effect at the time each payment is made, with annual increases based on the SAWW, but capped at two-thirds of the injured employee's average weekly earnings at the time of injury.

The WCJ must determine the appropriate weekly rate at which the death benefit was to be paid, considering these statutory provisions.