Opinion
1
JOSE DIAZ, Applicant v. BLACK ROCK MILLING COMPANY, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants Adjudication No. ADJ15267091 Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State of CaliforniaOctober 24, 2023Fresno District Office
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION
JOSEPH V. CAPURRO, COMMISSIONER
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 7, 2023 Order Granting Third Party Credit issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ ordered that defendant "be allowed a third-party credit in the sum of $4,978.32 against any and all indemnity workers' compensation benefits due, applicant for the April 22, 2021 injury, or any aggravation or further injury deemed to be a compensable consequence thereof."
Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred in not allowing the credit against all species of benefits.
We did not receive an answer. The presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) issued a Report on Reconsideration recommending that we deny reconsideration.
The WCJ who issued the August 7, 2023 Order Granting Third Party Credit retired.
Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the August 7, 2023 Order Granting Third Party Credit, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.
2
We are not able to provide meaningful review here because there is no record of proceedings. It is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board 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].) "The term 'substantial evidence' means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion...It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.)
Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) "It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record. At a minimum, the record must contain, in properly organized form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence." (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 475.) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on," so that "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.] . . . For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Id. at p. 476 (citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).)
The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) The Board may not leave matters undeveloped where it is clear that additional discovery is needed. (Id. at p. 404.)
3
We return this matter to the presiding judge for reassignment given that the WCJ has retired. Upon this matter's return, the new WCJ should conduct further proceedings as they determine necessary to ensure a proper record is created, which includes the framing of stipulations and the issues to be tried and any relevant evidence.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, that the August 7, 2023 Order Granting Third Party Credit is RESCINDED, and that this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision consistent with this opinion.
I CONCUR,
ANNE SCHMITZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CRAIG SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
JOSE DIAZ LAW OFFICES OF GOLDBERG & IBARRA STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
PAG/abs