What the panel ordered
Vacated the arbitration Findings and Order issued August 28, 2018; rescinded the Order joining UEBTF; returned the matter to trial level for further proceedings.
Petition for reconsideration after WCJ decision on May 18, 2021, seeking to vacate an arbitration Findings and Order (F&O) issued August 28, 2018.
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.
The arbitration Findings and Order was void ab initio due to failure to serve Avo's, a necessary party, violating due process and Labor Code section 5277(a). The WCJ lacked jurisdiction to vacate the order, so the WCAB vacated it and returned the matter for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 8Given the above circumstances, we conclude that the arbitration proceedings as conducted violated Avo's right to due process. More significantly, the F&O was intentionally not served on Avo's. This was not disputed by the parties. Given that this is in clear contravention to section 5277(a), which requires service on all parties, the F&O is void ab initio and must be vacated.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Avo's was not served with the arbitration Findings and Order, violating Labor Code section 5277(a) and due process rights.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure rendered the Findings and Order void ab initio and justified vacating it.
From the decision · page 8Given the above circumstances, we conclude that the arbitration proceedings as conducted violated Avo's right to due process. More significantly, the F&O was intentionally not served on Avo's. This was not disputed by the parties. Given that this is in clear contravention to section 5277(a), which requires service on all parties, the F&O is void ab initio and must be vacated.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 830
Pleadings in workers' compensation proceedings are liberally construed and may be amended to conform to proof to avoid depriving the Board of jurisdiction.
Even if the Petition to Vacate was not properly a petition for reconsideration, it should have been treated as one to protect due process rights.
From the decision · page 6In our recent en banc opinion in Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 830, 838 ("Chicago Dogs"), we held that: "In workers' compensation proceedings, pleadings are liberally construed and may be amended to conform to proof." We reiterated that:
Labor Code section 5277(a)
Labor Code section 5277(a) requires service of the WCA's findings and award on all parties within 30 days of submission for decision.
The failure to serve Avo's with the Findings and Order rendered it void ab initio.
From the decision · page 8Given the above circumstances, we conclude that the arbitration proceedings as conducted violated Avo's right to due process. More significantly, the F&O was intentionally not served on Avo's. This was not disputed by the parties. Given that this is in clear contravention to section 5277(a), which requires service on all parties, the F&O is void ab initio and must be vacated.
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5903; WCAB Rules 10600, 10605(a)(1)
A petition for reconsideration must be timely filed within 25 days of service of a final decision to be considered by the Appeals Board.
Avo's Petition to Vacate was timely filed within 20 days of receipt of the Findings and Order.
From the decision · page 5There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).)
WCAB Rule 10995
WCAB Rule 10995 allows a WCA to rescind or amend a decision upon receipt of a petition for reconsideration.
The WCA has independent authority to amend or correct a decision for good cause and may rescind or amend a decision once a petition for reconsideration is filed.
From the decision · page 7proceedings were conducted without the participation of Avo's as a necessary party and that Avo's was not served with the F&O -- the WCA took no steps to remedy the problem. Instead, he responded that Republic's consent was required to vacate the F&O. This response has no legal basis. A WCA has independent authority to amend or correct a decision for good cause under section 5803 and WCAB Rule 10966 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10966) and may rescind or amend a decision under WCAB Rule 10995 once a petition for reconsideration is filed.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Failure to serve Avo's with the arbitration Findings and Order, violating due process rights.
From the decision · page 8Given the above circumstances, we conclude that the arbitration proceedings as conducted violated Avo's right to due process. More significantly, the F&O was intentionally not served on Avo's. This was not disputed by the parties. Given that this is in clear contravention to section 5277(a), which requires service on all parties, the F&O is void ab initio and must be vacated.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.