Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 441 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 441 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
120 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hall v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (calctapp, 1986-04-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hall v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]; Zozaya, supra, 27 Cal.App.3d at p. 471 ; Solomon, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at p. 287 ; see LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Postural Therapeutics v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]; see also Painter v. Workers’ Comp.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Yavitch v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]; Goytia v. Workmen’s Comp.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fairview State Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]; City of Santa Ana v. Workers’ Comp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ].) Procedural Due Process The cavalier attitude of the WCJ toward the procedural due process rights of the defendants is shocking.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Santa Ana v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ].) (3) Finally, on review for substantial evidence in support of the Board's determination, the "test of substantiality must be measured on the basis of the entire record, rather than by simply isolating evidence which supports the board and ignoring other relevant facts of record which rebut or explain that evidence." ( Garza v. Workmen's Comp.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Newbery Electric Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]; Argonaut Ins.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hurwitz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]; see LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ].) To permit the WCAB to justify the calculation of the apportionment of the attorneys fee on a heretofore “secret” basis destroys the purpose of section 5908.5. 5 Accordingly, we decline to accept the WCAB’s belated explanation.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zozaya v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]; Solomon v. Workmen’s Comp.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dalen v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]; and Gaiera v. Workmen’s Comp.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Solomon v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]). 2 In Ascough v. Workmen’s Comp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DEPT. OF MOTOR VEH. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ].) (2) The true issue in this case is not the board's failure to set forth the evidence upon which it relied, but whether that evidence, as related in the referee's report as adopted by the board, in fact exists.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Department of Motor Vehicles v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ].) The true issue in this case is not the board’s failure to set forth the evidence upon which it relied, but whether that evidence, as related in the referee’s report as adopted by the board, in fact exists.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Baker v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ].) In the instant case the board failed to set forth the unimpeached evidence concerning petitioner’s complaints.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Redner v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. · 1971 · confidence medium
App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ].) 9 Although we do not believe that the board’s grant of reconsideration here rested upon sufficient grounds, we recognize that section 5903 provides the appeals board with considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant such reconsideration.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Garza v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. · 1970 · confidence medium
App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ]), we need not consider the force and effect of evidence upon which the board did not rely.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Peck v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [68 Cal.Rptr. *451 825, 441 P.2d 633 ].) ” (Granado v. Workmen’s Comp.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Granado v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
Cal. · 1968 · confidence medium
App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ].) In ordering apportionment, the board relied upon the evidence before it generally and the report of Dr. Robert R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lundberg v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (2×)
Cal. · 1968 · confidence medium
App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 ].) [7] There is grave doubt that the board has complied with this requirement.
examined Cited "see" Catalfo v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. (6×)
Iowa · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Evans v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 68 Cal.2d 753 , 68 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 441 P.2d 633 (1968); Andrews v. C.
MELVIN EVANS, Petitioner,
v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, AIRPORT PLASTERERS Et Al., Respondents
L.A. 29555.
California Supreme Court.
Jun 24, 1968.
441 P.2d 633
Levy, DeRoy, Geffner & Van Bourg and Barry Satzman for Petitioner., Everett A. Corten, Edward A. Sarkisian, Nathan Mudge, T. G-roezinger, Loton Wells, G. K. Bogue and Arthur C. Jones for Respondents.
Burke.
Cited by 38 opinions  |  Published
BURKE, J.

Petitioner seeks annulment of a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board after reconsideration which denied his petition to reopen on the ground of new and further disability. As hereinafter appears we have concluded that the decision should be annulled for failure of the appeals board to state the evidence relied upon and to detail the reasons for its action, as required by section 5908.5 of the Labor Code.

In 1963 petitioner was awarded permanent disability benefits by reason of industrial injuries suffered in January and March of 1961. On June 3, 1966, more than five years from the last date of injury, he filed a petition to reopen on the ground that he had sustained new and further disability.

Section 5804 of the Labor Code provides that “No award of compensation shall be rescinded, altered, or amended after five years from the date of the injury except upon a petition . . . filed within such five years. ...” Section 5408 states in pertinent part that the limitation period does not run against an incompetent unless and until a guardian or trustee is appointed. None had been appointed here.

After considering the evidence, including reports and testimony of physicians and psychiatrists who had examined petitioner, the trial referee granted the petition to reopen, found that petitioner’s injury had caused further disability and that his claims therefor were not barred by the limitations period, and issued an additional award. Defendants (employer and insurance carrier) sought reconsideration.

Thereafter the appeals board issued its order and decision in writing by which it (1) granted reconsideration; (2) vacated and annulled the referee’s reopening order and his decision and award; (3) found that petitioner’s injury did not cause any further disability, and that his claims therefor were barred by the limitations period; (4) denied his petition to reopen.

The only reference made by the board to the evidence and to the reasons for its decision was the statement that “We have carefully reviewed the record in this matter and are of the opinion that it is not established by the evidence therein that applicant was incompetent as he alleges. His petition to reopen which was filed on June 3 1966 was therefore barred. ’ ’

[*755] Section 5908.5 of the Labor Code directs that “Any decision of the. appeals board granting or denying a petition for reconsideration or affirming, rescinding, altering, or amending the original findings, order, decision, or award following reconsideration shall be made by the appeals board and not by a referee and shall be in writing . . . and shall state the evidence relied upon and specify in detail the reasons for the decision.” (Italics added.)

The purpose of the requirement that evidence be stated and reasons detailed appears analogous to that of the requirement of section 1705 of the Public Utilities Code that decisions of the Public Utilities Commission contain separately stated findings of the basic facts upon all material issues. It is to assist the reviewing court to ascertain the principles relied upon by the lower tribunal, to help that tribunal avoid careless or arbitrary action, and to make the right of appeal or of seeking review more meaningful. (Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1967) 65 Cal.2d 811, 813 [2] [56 Cal.Rptr. 484, 423 P.2d 556].)

Since the appeals board did not regularly pursue its authority, its decision must be annulled. The board retains jurisdiction, having granted reconsideration within the 30-day period set forth in section 5909 of the Labor Code. [1] The new decision to be issued by the board stating the evidence relied upon and detailing the reasons may at the board’s discretion be based upon the proceedings already taken. (See Associated Freight Lines v. Public Utilities Com. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 583, 585 [30 Cal.Rptr. 466, 391 P.2d 202].)

The decision of the board following reconsideration is annulled.

Traynor, C. J., McComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred.

Petitioner’s application for a rehearing was denied July 24, 1968, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

1

Seetion 5909: “ A petition- for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 30 days from the date of filing. The appeals board may, upon good cause being shown therefor, extend the time within which it may act upon such petition for not exceeding 30 days. ’ ’