What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; Order dismissing cases ADJ1993155 and ADJ984342 vacated; Order denying petition to set aside dismissal rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Order denying petition to set aside dismissal issued by the WCJ on September 12, 2024, which concluded the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to reopen the cases.
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 dismissal orders void ab initio due to lack of proper service and due process violations, thus it has jurisdiction to reopen the cases.
From the decision · page 6In verified pleadings, applicant stated - in essence - that she did not receive the notice of intent to dismiss the cases, which raises procedural due process concerns as to whether the required notice was received by applicant. It is one of the basic tenets of jurisprudence that a party must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case is dismissed. (See, e.g., San Bernardino Cmty. Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McKernan) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 928, 936 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 986].) Thus, the failure to serve applicant with the notice of intent is not only a violation of WCAB Rules; it constitutes a fundamental violation of applicant's due process rights, rendering the resulting July 30, 2019, Order dismissing cases ADJ1993155 and ADJ984342 void on its face.