ADJ12047380 · November 5, 2024

The WCJ's findings on employment and administration were incomplete, inconsistent, and included issues not raised at trial, raising due process concerns. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings to clarify the employment relationship and administration issues.

From the decision · page 1In the Findings and Order of April 20, 2021, the workers' compensation judge ("WCJ") found that applicant was employed by "Baron HR," and not by "Trion Solutions," in connection with applicant's claims that he sustained industrial injury to various body parts on February 22, 2019 (ADJ12047380) and during the period January 6, 2014 through February 22, 2019 (ADJ12048111). The WCJ also found that there was general-special employer relationship between "Baron HR LLC" as the general employer and "O'Tasty Food, Inc." allegedly insured by Falls Lake Insurance, administered by Sedgwick - as the special employer. In addition, the WCJ disallowed admission of Exhibits B and G into evidence, and the WCJ ordered Falls Lake Insurance ("Falls Lake"), the alleged insurer of special employer "O'Tasty Food, Inc.," to administer applicant's claims of injury.

The WCJ decided issues not raised at trial, including Insurance Code section 11663 and administration, without stipulations of industrial injury or insurance coverage.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This deprived parties of due process and meaningful review, necessitating rescission and remand.

From the decision · page 2The Appeals Board did not receive an answer to defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find issues that were raised at trial but not correctly addressed by the WCJ, and we find issues that were not raised at trial but decided by the WCJ. This raises due process concerns, as the parties lacked notice of the issues that would be decided by the WCJ and deprives them of meaningful review upon reconsideration. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805]. See also, Urlwin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 466 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1276].) Further, we are persuaded that the WCJ must revisit the issue of general-special employment under the correct legal framework. Therefore, we will rescind the WCJ's decision and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and new decision by the WCJ. (See Telles Transport, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Findings on employment were incomplete and inconsistent, with unclear identification of employer entities and unresolved issues of general-special employment relationship.

Favours Applicant prevailed

These deficiencies prevented a clear and complete record and proper resolution of employment issues.

From the decision · page 3We further note that findings two and three of the WCJ's decision are incomplete and inconsistent. Finding two seems to include a finding of employment only for applicant's claim of cumulative trauma from January 6, 2014 through February 22, 2019 (ADJ12048111) and not for the specific injury claim of February 22, 2019 (ADJ12047380). Further, finding two names "Baron HR" as the employer but does not specify whether this entity is a general or special

Insurance Code

Insurance Code 11663

The WCJ erred in relying on Insurance Code 11663 to order Falls Lake to administer claims without proper evidence of employment and insurance coverage.

From the decision · page 1In the Findings and Order of April 20, 2021, the workers' compensation judge ("WCJ") found that applicant was employed by "Baron HR," and not by "Trion Solutions," in connection with applicant's claims that he sustained industrial injury to various body parts on February 22, 2019 (ADJ12047380) and during the period January 6, 2014 through February 22, 2019 (ADJ12048111). The WCJ also found that there was general-special employer relationship between "Baron HR LLC" as the general employer and "O'Tasty Food, Inc." allegedly insured by Falls Lake Insurance, administered by Sedgwick - as the special employer. In addition, the WCJ disallowed admission of Exhibits B and G into evidence, and the WCJ ordered Falls Lake Insurance ("Falls Lake"), the alleged insurer of special employer "O'Tasty Food, Inc.," to administer applicant's claims of injury.

Labor Code

Labor Code sections 5900 et seq.

The Appeals Board applied Labor Code sections 5900 et seq. to grant reconsideration and order further proceedings.

From the decision · page 5In conclusion, we are persuaded that this matter must be returned to the WCJ for a "do- over" to determine who applicant's employer(s) are, including but not limited to clarification of all the issues discussed in this opinion. This requires the parties and the WCJ to create a clear and complete record, including a complete and precise statement of stipulations and issues. For the same reason, when the WCJ issues a new decision, the findings and Opinion on Decision must closely correspond to, and resolve the issues at hand. (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 [Appeals Board en banc].) The WCJ also may revisit his ruling excluding Exhibits B and G. As our rescission of the WCJ's decision includes rescission of that ruling, any significant prejudice or irreparable harm in the ruling is a moot point. It should be noted that we express no final opinion on any substantive issue. When the WCJ issues a new decision, any aggrieved party may seek reconsideration as provided in Labor Code sections 5900 et seq.

WCJ's findings were incomplete and inconsistent regarding employment and employer identity, and issues not raised at trial were decided, raising due process concerns.

From the decision · page 2The Appeals Board did not receive an answer to defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCJ submitted a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find issues that were raised at trial but not correctly addressed by the WCJ, and we find issues that were not raised at trial but decided by the WCJ. This raises due process concerns, as the parties lacked notice of the issues that would be decided by the WCJ and deprives them of meaningful review upon reconsideration. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805]. See also, Urlwin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 466 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1276].) Further, we are persuaded that the WCJ must revisit the issue of general-special employment under the correct legal framework. Therefore, we will rescind the WCJ's decision and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and new decision by the WCJ. (See Telles Transport, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.