ADJ14871067 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant challenging Findings and Order issued November 28, 2022

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The Petition for Reconsideration was denied because the WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight and the Petition improperly attached exhibits and failed to request judicial notice of the employer's website.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

The facts that decided it

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

The WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight because the WCJ observed the witness's demeanor and there was no substantial evidence to reject it

The rules the panel named

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

California Evidence Code

Cal Evid Code § 453

No judicial notice was requested for the employer's website, which was not part of the record

From the decision · page 5The Petition wishes to rely on Xtractor's website to evaluate its involvement in the cannabis industry, as well as indicate the undersigned erred in failing to take judicial notice of the website. The website is not part of the record as Defendant decided not to introduce any evidence. A request needs to be made of the court for judicial notice and there was no motion made during the proceedings for judicial notice of any fact, let alone the website.9 The undersigned is not able to do outside and/or independent investigation of facts.10 The Petition's discussion about the website, which was not introduced into evidence or requested that the undersigned even acknowledge, is at best misplaced and at worst possibly referencing evidence not in the record.

CCR 10945

Petition improperly attached exhibits in violation of this regulation

From the decision · page 4The Petition impermissibly attaches exhibits in violation of CCR 10945

California Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 (B)(7)

The WCJ cannot conduct outside or independent investigation of facts

From the decision · page 5The Petition wishes to rely on Xtractor's website to evaluate its involvement in the cannabis industry, as well as indicate the undersigned erred in failing to take judicial notice of the website. The website is not part of the record as Defendant decided not to introduce any evidence. A request needs to be made of the court for judicial notice and there was no motion made during the proceedings for judicial notice of any fact, let alone the website.9 The undersigned is not able to do outside and/or independent investigation of facts.10 The Petition's discussion about the website, which was not introduced into evidence or requested that the undersigned even acknowledge, is at best misplaced and at worst possibly referencing evidence not in the record.

ADJ14871067 · February 13, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page