ADJ12924233 · October 17, 2023

The WCJ and Appeals Board found no authority obligating the applicant to secure joinder of necessary parties; the employment issue against the joined insured employer may proceed while joinder of other parties is deferred.

From the decision · page 4Turning to the issue of joinder, we note that the joinder of parties pursuant to WCAB Rule 103822 is permissive rather than mandatory, as evidenced by the word "may." It serves judicial economy to join all parties "whose presence is necessary for the full adjudication of the case," and such joinder should be accomplished to the extent that it is possible. However, despite the passage of a significant amount of time and effort and several hearings, such joinder has not occurred in these cases. The WCJ did not cite nor did we find any authority for the notion that applicant is the

Applicant's counsel failed to join necessary parties despite court orders and efforts to obtain their names and addresses.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This failure led to dismissal orders which were later rescinded and the case returned for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 2joinder on the other two necessary parties. That never occurred, as various hearing notes indicate that the applicant's counsel represented to the court that he could not obtain the names or addresses of the other necessary parties.

The WCJ and Appeals Board found no authority obligating the applicant to secure joinder of necessary parties.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Allowed the employment issue against the joined insured employer to proceed while deferring joinder of other parties.

From the decision · page 5party obligated to secure these joinders. Therefore, the issue of employment against the currently joined insured employer may proceed, so long as the issues dual employment, general-special employment, and any other related issues are deferred.

Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d)

Decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence.

The Board emphasized the need for a complete and adequate record with substantial evidence to support decisions.

From the decision · page 3We are not able to provide meaningful review here because there is no record of proceedings in these matters. 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.)

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc)

Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence in the record.

An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision.

From the decision · page 3Decisions 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

McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]

The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue.

The Board may not leave matters undeveloped where additional discovery is needed.

From the decision · page 4The 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.) Moreover, while the request for removal regarding the issue of the October 20, 2021 Order Taking Off Calendar was previously denied, that denial does not prevent the same issue from being addressed on reconsideration.1

WCAB Rule 10382

Joinder of parties pursuant to WCAB Rule 10382 is permissive rather than mandatory.

Joinder serves judicial economy and should be accomplished to the extent possible, but is not mandatory.

From the decision · page 4Turning to the issue of joinder, we note that the joinder of parties pursuant to WCAB Rule 103822 is permissive rather than mandatory, as evidenced by the word "may." It serves judicial economy to join all parties "whose presence is necessary for the full adjudication of the case," and such joinder should be accomplished to the extent that it is possible. However, despite the passage of a significant amount of time and effort and several hearings, such joinder has not occurred in these cases. The WCJ did not cite nor did we find any authority for the notion that applicant is the