SIMILARCASE

Loading

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ10649985 · March 1, 2021

Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's order for Cumis counsel rescinded; matter remanded for further proceedings.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 0
Authorities named: 2
District office: Los Angeles

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's order for Cumis counsel rescinded; matter remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's order requiring provision of Cumis counsel; the Board treated the petition as one for reconsideration, granted it, rescinded the order, and remanded for further proceedings.

Read the official 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.

Other disputed issueRemanded

There is an insufficient evidentiary record to evaluate whether a conflict of interest exists requiring Cumis counsel; the WCJ's order was rescinded and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The facts that decided it

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

There was no sufficient evidentiary record to evaluate whether a conflict of interest existed requiring Cumis counsel.

Favours neutral

The lack of record prevented the Board from evaluating the WCJ's order and led to rescission and remand.

The rules the panel named

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

ADJ10649985 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Labor Code § 5313; Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613 (en banc); Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (en banc)

A WCJ is required to make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties, with reasons and evidence relied upon.

The Appeals Board found the record insufficient to evaluate the WCJ's order for Cumis counsel, as required by section 5313 and en banc authority.

From the decision · page 4III. A WCJ is required to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 [2010 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 74] (Appeals Board en banc).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 [2001 Cal. Wrk.

Labor Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068

A petition for reconsideration may be taken only from a 'final' order, decision, or award.

The WCJ's order to provide Cumis counsel was found to be a final order subject to reconsideration.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ's order to defendant to provide Cumis counsel determines a right or liability of defendant. Thus, the WCJ's Order for Cumis Counsel is a final order subject to reconsideration, and we treat the Petition as one for reconsideration.