ADJ8750331 — California WCAB 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.

LiensApplicant prevailed

The record is insufficient to establish good cause to set aside the stipulation due to defendant's failure to exercise due diligence and the stipulation is valid as modified.

From the decision · page 7Here, the Stipulation fails to identify the date lien claimant filed the lien and, instead, provides that the filing date may be found in "EAMS." (Ex. A, Stipulation and Order to Pay Lien Claimant, April 13, 2017.) In addition, defendant's representative testified credibly that he mistook the last entry on the itemized bill he received from lien claimant's representative for a date of service when it was actually an entry for penalties and interest--and only realized his mistake after executing the Stipulation. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, November 19, 2019, pp. 7:15-8:1; Report, p. 2; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317§ 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Thus, defendant's representative could have examined the record in EAMS or closely scrutinized the itemized bill in order to learn the service date of the lien before signing the Stipulation--but did neither. We are therefore persuaded that the reason defendant entered the Stipulation without full knowledge of the relevant facts was that it failed to exercise due diligence. Therefore, the record is insufficient to establish good cause to set aside the Stipulation. Accordingly, we will amend the Findings of Fact to find that no good cause exists to set aside the Stipulation and Order to Pay Lien Claimant.

The facts that decided it

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

Defendant's representative signed the stipulation without realizing the lien was barred by the statute of limitations.

The rules the panel named

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

County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114

Stipulations are designed to expedite trials and hearings and should be encouraged; a party may not withdraw from a stipulation without good cause.

The Board applied this principle to find no good cause to set aside the stipulation absent evidence of fraud, duress, mistake, or invalidity.

From the decision · page 5DISCUSSION In County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1], the Court annulled the WCAB's decision to set aside the parties' stipulation that applicant failed to assert a cumulative injury claim because the stipulation lacked evidentiary support and directed the WCAB to consider whether good cause to set aside the stipulation was shown. The Court reasoned: Stipulations are designed to expedite trials and hearings and their use in workers' compensation cases should be encouraged.... If one party could, as a matter of right, withdraw from a stipulation at any time before it was acted upon by the WCJ or the WCAB, other parties could not rely upon the stipulation and, rather than being expedited, hearings would be subject to uncertainty and disruption in order for the parties to gather and present evidence on issues thought to have been laid to rest by the stipulation. (Weatherall, supra, Cal.App.4th 1114, 92 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1, 5] (citations omitted).)

County of San Joaquin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Sepulveda) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1180

Contract principles apply to stipulations; the parties' mutual intention governs interpretation.

The Board interpreted the stipulation as a settlement contract reflecting the parties' intention.

From the decision · page 6Here, we observe that contract principles apply to stipulations for settlement of workers' compensation disputes. (County of San Joaquin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Sepulveda) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1184 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 193].) Such stipulations constitute settlement documents that must be interpreted to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful. (Civ. Code, § 1636.) Since the settlement document is a written contract, the parties' intention must be ascertained, if possible, from the writing alone, and the clear language of the contract governs its interpretation if an absurdity is not involved. (Civ. Code, § 1638, 1639.)

Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856

A stipulation may be set aside for inadvertence, excusable neglect, fraud, mistake of fact or law, or special circumstances; lack of due diligence is not good cause.

The Board found defendant's failure to exercise due diligence insufficient to set aside the stipulation.

From the decision · page 7Where a stipulation has been "entered into through inadvertence, excusable neglect, fraud, mistake of fact or law, where the facts stipulated have changed or there has been a change in the underlying conditions that could not have been anticipated, or where special circumstances exist rendering it unjust to enforce the stipulation," a court may exercise its sound discretion and set aside the stipulation. [citations omitted.] But, "[w]hen there is no mistake but merely a lack of full knowledge of the facts, which... is due to the failure of a party to exercise due diligence to ascertain them, there is no proper ground for relief." [citation omitted.]. (Huston, supra, 44 Cal.Comp.Cases at 804.)

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Defendant's representative testified that he mistakenly believed the lien was timely when signing the stipulation but later discovered it was outside the statute of limitations.

From the decision · page 7Here, the Stipulation fails to identify the date lien claimant filed the lien and, instead, provides that the filing date may be found in "EAMS." (Ex. A, Stipulation and Order to Pay Lien Claimant, April 13, 2017.) In addition, defendant's representative testified credibly that he mistook the last entry on the itemized bill he received from lien claimant's representative for a date of service when it was actually an entry for penalties and interest--and only realized his mistake after executing the Stipulation. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, November 19, 2019, pp. 7:15-8:1; Report, p. 2; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317§ 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Thus, defendant's representative could have examined the record in EAMS or closely scrutinized the itemized bill in order to learn the service date of the lien before signing the Stipulation--but did neither. We are therefore persuaded that the reason defendant entered the Stipulation without full knowledge of the relevant facts was that it failed to exercise due diligence. Therefore, the record is insufficient to establish good cause to set aside the Stipulation. Accordingly, we will amend the Findings of Fact to find that no good cause exists to set aside the Stipulation and Order to Pay Lien Claimant.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

The stipulation was signed without full knowledge of the statute of limitations issue, but the defendant failed to exercise due diligence to discover it before signing.

From the decision · page 7Here, the Stipulation fails to identify the date lien claimant filed the lien and, instead, provides that the filing date may be found in "EAMS." (Ex. A, Stipulation and Order to Pay Lien Claimant, April 13, 2017.) In addition, defendant's representative testified credibly that he mistook the last entry on the itemized bill he received from lien claimant's representative for a date of service when it was actually an entry for penalties and interest--and only realized his mistake after executing the Stipulation. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, November 19, 2019, pp. 7:15-8:1; Report, p. 2; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317§ 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Thus, defendant's representative could have examined the record in EAMS or closely scrutinized the itemized bill in order to learn the service date of the lien before signing the Stipulation--but did neither. We are therefore persuaded that the reason defendant entered the Stipulation without full knowledge of the relevant facts was that it failed to exercise due diligence. Therefore, the record is insufficient to establish good cause to set aside the Stipulation. Accordingly, we will amend the Findings of Fact to find that no good cause exists to set aside the Stipulation and Order to Pay Lien Claimant.

ADJ8750331 · April 15, 2021

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