Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 3715-3716
The Appeals Board must acquire jurisdiction over an uninsured employer through formal service of process and special notice as required by Labor Code sections 3715 and 3716 before resolving claims against that employer.
The Appeals Board found that PSI was not properly served and did not make a general appearance, so jurisdiction was never acquired.
From the decision · page 2Also as stated in the Decision, UEBTF may only resolve claims for workers' compensation
against uninsured employers through stipulated findings and award or compromise and release if
the Appeals Board "has acquired jurisdiction over the employer." (Lab. Code, § 3715(e).) In order
to acquire jurisdiction over such an employer, the requirements for formal service of process of an
application for adjudication of claim and special notice of lawsuit, which include a detailed notice
that a lien may be imposed are not optional, unless the employer makes a general appearance.
(Lab. Code, § 3715-3716.) It is undisputed that PSI did not make a general appearance at any
time prior to April 6, 2011.
Labor Code section 5804
Once a finding of employment becomes final, the Appeals Board lacks authority to find no employment upon a petition to reopen under Labor Code section 5804.
The Appeals Board held that the prior award involving PSI was void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction, so section 5804 did not apply.
From the decision · page 2As set forth in the Decision, at the time the Stipulations were presented to the WCJ for
review and approval, the Appeals Board had not "acquired jurisdiction" over PSI. Jurisdiction is,
as conceded by UEBTF, a substantial issue. It is therefore quite unfortunate that the WCJ did not
discover the lack of jurisdiction over PSI when conducting review of the Stipulations for adequacy.
However, the Decision did not violate section 5804 given that the Award was issued without
jurisdiction and, as a natural consequence, was void ab initio. In other words, the stipulation
between applicant and UEBTF that PSI was applicant's employer was not issued as part of a final
order of employment in this matter, and therefore cannot be relied on to apply section 5804.3
Labor Code section 5506
If a defendant fails to appear or answer, relief must be requested pursuant to Labor Code section 5506 and Code of Civil Procedure section 473.
The Appeals Board found that PSI was never a defendant in the proceedings, so section 5506 did not apply to PSI.
From the decision · page 3Next, given that the Appeals Board never acquired jurisdiction over PSI in this matter, PSI
was never a defendant in these proceedings. If PSI was never a defendant in these proceedings,
then it follows that section 5506 does not apply to PSI. (Lab. Code, § 5506 ["If the defendant fails
to appear or answer..."].) Therefore, PSI was not required to request relief pursuant to the
provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 as required by section 5506. Even so, we note
that the Petition for Dismissal filed by PSI on September 9, 2022 could be considered such a
request given the informality of proceedings in workers' compensation. (Lab. Code, § 5709.)