What the panel ordered
The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's December 5, 2023 Order Imposing Sanctions and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 4, 2024.
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 WCAB found the record insufficient to review the merits of the sanctions and determined that a hearing was necessary to create a record for proper adjudication, leading to rescission of the sanctions order and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 4Labor Code section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record in EAMS was scant and the petition for reconsideration was incomplete, making it impossible to review the merits of the sanctions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of a complete record prevented the WCAB from properly reviewing the sanctions order, leading to rescission and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 4We make no judgment as to the merits of sanctions at this time as the record in EAMS is scant and the petition for reconsideration filed by applicant is not complete. Thus, it is not possible for us to review the matter on the merits.
Neither Lance Garrett nor Susan Garrett objected to the notice of intent to impose sanctions, but no hearing was held to allow testimony or evidence regarding ADA accommodations or conduct.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The absence of a hearing to create a record on the conduct and accommodations was a key reason for remanding the matter for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 4However, and although it appears that neither Lance Garrett nor Susan Garrett objected to the notice of intent to impose sanctions, given the seriousness of the alleged conduct, it would appear that a more prudent course would be to set the issue of sanctions for a hearing so that both Lance Garrett and Susan Garrett may testify as to their conduct. Lance Garrett should be provided an opportunity to present evidence establishing a provisional ADA accommodation existed when he made such representation to the court. After a record is created, the WCJ may readdress the issue of whether sanctions are appropriate, and if so, what the appropriate amount of sanctions may be.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5313
Labor Code section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the reasons or grounds for the determination made, supported by substantial evidence.
The WCJ's order imposing sanctions lacked sufficient evidentiary support and explanation, necessitating reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4Labor Code section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.)
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.