ADJ12184149 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB rescinded the February 3, 2020 Findings and Order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order issued on February 3, 2020, which found the claim barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) post-termination defense. The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the issues further.

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.

Jurisdiction / venueApplicant prevailed

Applicant did not receive notice of the pre-trial conference or trial, violating his due process rights to notice and opportunity to be heard.

From the decision · page 4DISCUSSION Labor Code section 53132 requires that a WCJ "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313, 5316; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10759, 10761; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (emphasis added).) The Notice of the December 2, 2019 pre-trial conference was returned to sender as undeliverable, thus it is not clear that applicant received notice of the hearing. (Lab. Code, § 5504; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(d).) Furthermore, there is no proof of service in EAMS that the minutes or pre-trial conference statement were served or filed with the Board. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)-(c).) Moreover, it is unclear whether applicant received notice of the December 31, 2019 trial, as the only "notice of hearing" in the record appears in the aforementioned pre-trial conference statement, for which there is no proof of service filed in EAMS. (Lab. Code, § 5316, 5504; Cal. Code Regs., tit.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant did not receive notice of the December 31, 2019 trial and the trial proceeded without applicant present.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Trial without notice and without applicant present violated due process rights.

From the decision · page 3On December 31, 2019, the matter proceeded to trial over applicant's attorney's objections. Applicant's counsel advised the court that applicant did not receive notice of the trial and the trial proceeded without applicant.

Notice of the December 2, 2019 pre-trial conference was returned as undeliverable to applicant's address.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This showed applicant did not receive notice of the hearing, violating due process rights.

From the decision · page 2On November 19, 2019, the Notice of Hearing addressed to applicant at 633 Paseo Esmeralda, Newbury Park, CA was returned as undeliverable at applicant's address, marked "return to sender," "not deliverable as addressed," and "unable to forward."

No proof of service of the pre-trial conference minutes or statement was filed in EAMS.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of proof of service meant applicant was not properly notified, supporting due process violation.

From the decision · page 4DISCUSSION Labor Code section 53132 requires that a WCJ "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313, 5316; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10759, 10761; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (emphasis added).) The Notice of the December 2, 2019 pre-trial conference was returned to sender as undeliverable, thus it is not clear that applicant received notice of the hearing. (Lab. Code, § 5504; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(d).) Furthermore, there is no proof of service in EAMS that the minutes or pre-trial conference statement were served or filed with the Board. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)-(c).) Moreover, it is unclear whether applicant received notice of the December 31, 2019 trial, as the only "notice of hearing" in the record appears in the aforementioned pre-trial conference statement, for which there is no proof of service filed in EAMS. (Lab. Code, § 5316, 5504; Cal. Code Regs., tit.

The rules the panel named

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

Lab. Code, §§ 5313, 5316, 5504; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10625, 10750; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151; Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284; San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928

Due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard in workers' compensation proceedings.

The WCAB found that applicant did not receive proper notice of hearings, violating due process rights.

From the decision · page 4DISCUSSION Labor Code section 53132 requires that a WCJ "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313, 5316; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10759, 10761; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (emphasis added).) The Notice of the December 2, 2019 pre-trial conference was returned to sender as undeliverable, thus it is not clear that applicant received notice of the hearing. (Lab. Code, § 5504; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(d).) Furthermore, there is no proof of service in EAMS that the minutes or pre-trial conference statement were served or filed with the Board. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10625(b)-(c).) Moreover, it is unclear whether applicant received notice of the December 31, 2019 trial, as the only "notice of hearing" in the record appears in the aforementioned pre-trial conference statement, for which there is no proof of service filed in EAMS. (Lab. Code, § 5316, 5504; Cal. Code Regs., tit.

ADJ12184149 · April 8, 2022

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