Barri v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 428; Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151; Fremont Indem. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 965; Ogden Entertainment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Von Ritzhoff) (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 970; San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703; Lab. Code, § 5952(a), (c)
The Appeals Board may not ignore due process for the sake of expediency; due process requires a meaningful consideration of the merits of every case de novo with a well-reasoned decision based on the evidentiary record and the relevant law.
The Board found that without a complete record, due process and meaningful review are not possible, requiring remand.
From the decision · page 3The Appeals Board may not ignore due process for the sake of expediency. (Barri v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 428, 469 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1643]
[claimants in workers' compensation proceedings are not denied due process when proceedings
are delayed in order to ensure compliance with the mandate to accomplish substantial justice];
Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases
805] [all parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process
and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions].) "Even though
workers' compensation matters are to be handled expeditiously by the Board and its trial judges,
administrative efficiency at the expense of due process is not permissible." (Fremont Indem. Co.
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 965, 971 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 288]; see
Ogden Entertainment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Von Ritzhoff) (2014) 233
Cal.App.4th 970, 985 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].)
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (en banc); Lewis v. Arlie Rogers & Sons (2003) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 490; Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753
An arbitrator's decision must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence. Meaningful review requires an ascertainable and adequate record, including identification of evidence submitted and admitted or denied.
The Board could not conduct meaningful review due to the incomplete record, so remand was required.
From the decision · page 4As with a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), an arbitrator's decision
must be based on admitted evidence and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Hamilton v.
Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).)
Meaningful review of an arbitrator's decision requires that the "decision be based on an
ascertainable and adequate record," including "an orderly identification in the record of the
evidence submitted by a party; and what evidence is admitted or denied admission." (Lewis v. Arlie
Rogers & Sons (2003) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 490, 494, emphasis in original.) "An organized
evidentiary record assists an arbitrator in rendering a decision, informs the parties what evidence
will be utilized by the arbitrator in making a determination, preserves the rights of parties to object
to proffered evidence, and affords meaningful review by the Board, or reviewing tribunal." (Id.;
see also Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753 [a full and complete record
allows for a meaningful right of reconsideration].)