Proof of service showed notice was mailed to defendant's correct address, creating a presumption of receipt.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established that defendant had proper notice of the hearing, undermining their due process claim.
From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that notice was not received for the March 28, 2024 MSC and claims
to have been denied due process when the WCJ issued a March 29, 2024 OACR in response to
submission of a Compromise and Release Agreement by the parties. In a December 5, 2023 Order
Rescinding Order Approving Compromise and Release, however, the WCJ set the matter for the
March 28, 2024 MSC. Proof of Service (POS) of the Notice of Hearing (NOH) was attached to
the Order. Per the December 5, 2023 POS, both the Order and NOH were served upon defendant's
address, which is listed as: P.O. Box 7385 Beverly Hills, California 90212. This is the same address
listed for defendant in the Official Address Record (OAR). This is also the address a prior October
27, 2023 Notice of Intent (NOI) to Approve Compromise and Release was sent to previously. The
Defendant failed to provide evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt of notice.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without rebuttal evidence, the presumption of receipt stands, supporting denial of the petition.
From the decision · page 2Defendant provides no evidence to substantiate their claim that notice was not received,
and the record does not contain evidence of a notice of change of mailing address. As explained
in Alvarado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 35 Cal.Comp.Cases 370 (writ den.) and
Castro v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 61 Cal.Comp.Cases 1460 (writ den.), mere
allegation that a recipient did not receive a mailed document is insufficient to rebut the Evidence
Code section 641 presumption. If the sending party produces evidence that a document was mailed,
the burden shifts to the recipient to produce "believable contrary evidence" that it was not received.
(Craig v. Brown & Root (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 421-422, citing Slater v. Kehoe (1974) 38
Cal.App.3d 819, 832, fn. 12.) Once the recipient produces sufficient evidence showing non-receipt
of the mailed item, "the presumption disappears" and the "trier of fact must then weigh the denial
of receipt against the inference of receipt arising from proof of mailing and decide whether or not
the letter was received." (Id.)
Defendant did not appear at the scheduled Mandatory Settlement Conference despite notice.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Defendant's absence was considered an invited error, estopping them from claiming prejudice.
From the decision · page 5On March 28, 2024 at 8:30 a.m., the Applicant, by her attorney of record, Irina Rubin, appeared
as well as the Department of Industrial Relations, by Thomas Routson, appearing for the
Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund. Taking the case off calendar, the undersigned WCJ
wrote on the minutes of hearing the following minute reflection: