What the panel ordered
Award of January 11, 2023 is rescinded and matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings consistent with opinion.
Petition for reconsideration filed by defendant to correct clerical error in Award; WCJ Award rescinded and matter returned for new Award issuance.
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The inclusion of E.M. Pizza Inc. in the Award was a clerical error not supported by the Stipulations; the Award was rescinded and returned for correction.
From the decision · page 3Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543, 558, internal citation omitted.) Here, in comparing the Stipulations to the Award, the Stipulations signed by the parties stipulate that applicant was employed as a technician by St. Joseph's Medical Center of Stockton. There is no mention of E.M. Pizza, Inc., in the Stipulations. Thus, it is evident that the inclusion of E.M. Pizza Inc., on the Award is a clerical error, and that the Award should not have issued as to E.M. Pizza, Inc. Accordingly, we rescind the Award and return the matter to the WCJ so that a new Award may be issued that conforms to the Stipulations.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Award incorrectly named E.M. Pizza Inc. as a defendant despite no mention in the Stipulations.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This clerical error required rescission of the Award and issuance of a corrected Award.
From the decision · page 3Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543, 558, internal citation omitted.) Here, in comparing the Stipulations to the Award, the Stipulations signed by the parties stipulate that applicant was employed as a technician by St. Joseph's Medical Center of Stockton. There is no mention of E.M. Pizza, Inc., in the Stipulations. Thus, it is evident that the inclusion of E.M. Pizza Inc., on the Award is a clerical error, and that the Award should not have issued as to E.M. Pizza, Inc. Accordingly, we rescind the Award and return the matter to the WCJ so that a new Award may be issued that conforms to the Stipulations.
The WCJ failed to serve the Award on the applicant, making service defective.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Defective service extended the time to file the Petition for Reconsideration, allowing it to be timely.
From the decision · page 2Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75-76].) Where an order can be shown to have been defectively served, the time limit begins to run as of the date of receipt of the order. (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Phillips) (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 1193].) Here, service of the
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10507(a)(1), 10508, 10845(a), 10392(a); Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068
Petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of service of final decision; defective service extends time to file.
Defendant's petition was timely due to defective service of Award on applicant.
From the decision · page 2I. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10507(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10508.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the Appeals Board within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10845(a), 10392(a).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650, 656]; Rymer v.
Toccalino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 543
The Appeals Board or WCJ may correct clerical errors at any time without further hearings.
The inclusion of E.M. Pizza Inc. was a clerical error and should be corrected by rescinding the Award.
From the decision · page 3II. Labor Code section 5702 states: The parties to a controversy may stipulate the facts relative thereto in writing and file such stipulation with the appeals board. The appeals board may thereupon make its findings and award based upon such stipulation, or may set the matter down for hearing and take further testimony or make the further investigation necessary to enable it to determine the matter in controversy. When presented with stipulations with request for award, the WCJ "shall inquire into the adequacy of all...Stipulations with Request for Award, and may set the matter for hearing to take evidence when necessary to determine whether the agreement should be approved or disapproved..." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10700(b).) "The Appeals Board or a Workers' Compensation Judge may correct a clerical error at any time and without necessity for further hearings, notwithstanding the lapse of the statutory period for filing a petition for reconsideration." (Toccalino v. Workers' Comp.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defective service of Award on applicant
From the decision · page 2Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75-76].) Where an order can be shown to have been defectively served, the time limit begins to run as of the date of receipt of the order. (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Phillips) (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 1193].) Here, service of the
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.