ADJ8646118 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted, Findings of Fact and Order rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings

Petition for Reconsideration granted, Findings of Fact and Order of May 1, 2024 rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Other disputed issueApplicant prevailed

The parties did not enter the contract into evidence and defendant did not provide evidence of mutual mistake; the record was insufficient to evaluate this issue.

From the decision · page 5In addition to the sanctions, the WCJ also found that the real party in interest should be Central Coast Interpreters, which did not and does not exist on its own with its own Tax ID number; that there was mutual mistake of material fact, and thus, the contracts for interpreting services rendered on January 13, 2015 and April 10, 2015 are voided; and that defendants did not owe cost petitioner any costs pursuant to section 5811. (F&O, p. 2.) However, the parties did not enter the contract into evidence and defendant did not provide any evidence or testimony that there was a mutual mistake of fact.

Penalties under Labor Code §5814

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

WCJ imposed sanctions without notice and opportunity to be heard

Favours Applicant prevailed

This violated defendant's due process rights and rendered the sanctions improper.

From the decision · page 5notice and an opportunity to be heard violates the parties' rights to due process. (Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584], citing Rucker, supra, at pp. 157-158.) Due process requires "a `hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265, quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.) Although due process is "a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors," it generally requires the right to present relevant evidence. (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817.) The WCJ imposed sanctions without appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard and in violation of defendant's right of due process. (Lab. Code, § 5813(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10832(a)(3).)

Parties did not enter contracts into evidence and defendant did not provide evidence of mutual mistake

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of evidence made the finding of mutual mistake and voiding contracts unsupported.

From the decision · page 5In addition to the sanctions, the WCJ also found that the real party in interest should be Central Coast Interpreters, which did not and does not exist on its own with its own Tax ID number; that there was mutual mistake of material fact, and thus, the contracts for interpreting services rendered on January 13, 2015 and April 10, 2015 are voided; and that defendants did not owe cost petitioner any costs pursuant to section 5811. (F&O, p. 2.) However, the parties did not enter the contract into evidence and defendant did not provide any evidence or testimony that there was a mutual mistake of fact.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10832(a)(3)

Sanctions require notice and opportunity to be heard to satisfy due process under Labor Code section 5813 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a) and 10832(a)(3)

The WCJ imposed sanctions without notice and opportunity to be heard, violating due process rights.

From the decision · page 5notice and an opportunity to be heard violates the parties' rights to due process. (Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584], citing Rucker, supra, at pp. 157-158.) Due process requires "a `hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265, quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.) Although due process is "a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors," it generally requires the right to present relevant evidence. (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817.) The WCJ imposed sanctions without appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard and in violation of defendant's right of due process. (Lab. Code, § 5813(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421(a), 10832(a)(3).)

Labor Code sections 5903, 5952(d); Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159

Decisions must be supported by substantial evidence and an adequate record under Labor Code sections 5903, 5952(d) and case law

The record lacked sufficient evidence to support the finding of mutual mistake of fact and voiding contracts.

From the decision · page 5In addition to the sanctions, the WCJ also found that the real party in interest should be Central Coast Interpreters, which did not and does not exist on its own with its own Tax ID number; that there was mutual mistake of material fact, and thus, the contracts for interpreting services rendered on January 13, 2015 and April 10, 2015 are voided; and that defendants did not owe cost petitioner any costs pursuant to section 5811. (F&O, p. 2.) However, the parties did not enter the contract into evidence and defendant did not provide any evidence or testimony that there was a mutual mistake of fact.

ADJ8646118 · July 5, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page