Right here’s an attention-grabbing writ denied case relating to the difficulty of when stipulations could also be put aside and when they might not. We’ll be reporting this case within the upcoming January 2025 problem of California Compensation Circumstances.
Infinity Staffing Companies, Inc., Arch Insurance coverage Firm, administered by Sedgwick Claims Administration, Petitioners v. Staff’ Compensation Appeals Board, Enrique Vargas, Respondents
90 Cal. Comp. Circumstances —, 2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 73
Court docket of Enchantment of California, Sixth Appellate District
October 24, 2024 Writ of Evaluate Denied
Civil No. H052231
Prior Historical past: W.C.A.B. No. ADJ12980584—WCJ Pauline H. Suh (SJO); WCAB Panel: Commissioner Capurro, Chair Zalewski, Commissioner Dodd [see Vargas v. Infinity Staffing Services, 2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 146 (Appeals Board noteworthy panel decision)]
Disposition: Petition for writ of assessment denied
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES HEADNOTES
Stipulations—Setting Apart—WCAB, granting reconsideration and amending WCJ’s choice, awarded applicant who suffered industrial damage to his again, proper hip and proper shoulder whereas working as laborer on 8/30/2019 everlasting incapacity advantages at charge of $290 per week, as derived from applicant’s stipulated weekly earnings of $554.13, when WCAB discovered that applicant was statutorily entitled to this everlasting incapacity charge based mostly upon WCJ’s discovering that he was not seasonal employee, and that WCJ erred in awarding applicant everlasting incapacity at charge of $160 per week based mostly upon events’ stipulation, as a result of WCJ’s discovering that applicant was not seasonal employee constituted good trigger to put aside stipulation, which couldn’t moderately be taken at face worth as a result of it appeared to characterize “fudge” midway between applicant’s place that he was not seasonal employee and defendant’s place that applicant was seasonal employee with a lot decrease precise incomes capability. [See generally Hanna, Cal. Law of Emp. Inj. and Workers’ Comp. 2d §§ 26.06[2], 28.02; Rassp & Herlick, California Staff’ Compensation Legislation, Ch. 16, §§ 16.23, 16.45[2]; Ch. 19, § 19.05[3].]
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES SUMMARY
Applicant claimed that he suffered an industrial damage to his proper shoulder, proper hip and again on 8/30/2019 whereas employed by Defendant Infinity Staffing Companies, Inc., as a laborer. The matter in the end proceeded to trial on numerous points, together with PD and whether or not Defendant overpaid TTD. Defendant’s overpayment argument was predicated on the idea that Applicant was a seasonal employee and that TTD funds weren’t due through the low season. The events stipulated at trial that Applicant’s earnings on the time of his damage have been $554.13 per week, warranting a PD indemnity charge of $160.
On 6/9/2023, the WCJ issued her first F&A, whereby she discovered that Applicant was not a seasonal worker however was slightly a daily worker entitled to TTD funds year-round. Primarily based on this discovering, no credit score for TTD overpayment was awarded. The WCJ additional discovered that Applicant suffered 62 % PD, payable on the charge of $160 per week. Nonetheless, the WCJ listed the overall PD sum due as $106,502.50, the quantity that will have been applicable if the PD charge had been $290 per week. The WCJ subsequently issued an Amended F&A correcting the overall quantity of PD because of replicate the sum of $58,760, per the $160 PD charge stipulation.
Applicant challenged the WCJ’s discovering relating to the overall sum of PD, asserting that the WCJ ought to have put aside the events’ stipulation to a PD charge of $160 per week as a result of Applicant was not a seasonal employee and was, subsequently, entitled to PD on the weekly charge of $290 based mostly on his earnings. In response, the WCJ rescinded the primary F&A and set the matter for trial on the problems of whether or not Applicant’s right PD charge was $160 or $290 and whether or not there was good trigger to put aside the events’ stipulation to $160. At trial, the events stipulated to all of the findings within the first F&A, besides with respect to Applicant’s weekly PD charge. Applicant’s legal professional submitted a declaration stating that he didn’t intend to agree that $160 was the proper PD charge, however slightly meant to stipulate that $160 per week was the PD charge Defendant had beforehand paid on this matter.
On 2/15/2024, the WCJ issued an F&A, discovering no good trigger to alleviate Applicant of his stipulation to a weekly PD charge of $160. The WCJ reasoned that Applicant had a number of probabilities previous to submission of this matter to withdraw from the stipulation however failed to take action, and that if the stipulation was a mistake, the error was unilateral on Applicant’s half. Applicant sought reconsideration, contending in related portion that the WCJ erred in calculating PD advantages on the charge of $160 per week as an alternative of $290 per week as a result of Applicant was not a seasonal employee and was entitled to the statutory most based mostly on his earnings. Defendant didn’t dispute the discovering that Applicant was not a seasonal employee however argued that Applicant was sure by his stipulation even when it resulted in an award that was inconsistent with the statutory scheme for calculating PD charge.
The WCAB granted reconsideration and amended the WCJ’s choice to award Applicant PD on the weekly charge of $290, to which the WCAB discovered he was clearly entitled underneath Labor Code §§ 4453 and 4658 based mostly upon the WCJ’s dedication that he was not a seasonal employee. Citing County of Sacramento v. W.C.A.B. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1114, 92 Cal. Rptr. 2nd 290, 65 Cal. Comp. Circumstances 1, the WCAB defined that stipulations are binding on the events until there’s good trigger for aid, which incorporates mutual mistake of truth or regulation, duress, fraud, undue affect, and procedural irregularities. The WCAB emphasised that whether or not or not good trigger exists have to be analyzed within the context of every case.
Right here, the WCAB famous, the WCJ decided within the first F&A that Applicant was not a seasonal employee for the needs of TTD overpayment. Neither get together challenged this discovering throughout any of the proceedings following issuance of the choice, and it was implicitly accepted by the events on the second trial once they stipulated to all of the findings within the first F&A, apart from PD charge. The WCAB defined that the weekly PD charge is about underneath Labor Code § 4658(e) at two-thirds of common weekly earnings, and that common weekly earnings for functions of PD are capped at $435 per 30 days. Given Applicant’s stipulated weekly earnings of $554.13, he would ordinarily be entitled to PD at a charge of $290, the statutory most, slightly than the statutory minimal of $160. Consequently, the WCAB famous, the stipulation to $160 was opposite to the statutorily-required methodology of computation and, if taken at face worth, seemingly represented both a mutual mistake of regulation or an try to intentionally stipulate to a PD charge unauthorized by statute.
The WCAB noticed that there could be good trigger to put aside the stipulation if it have been based mostly on a mutual mistake of regulation. Equally, if the stipulation represented an try to stipulate to a statutorily unauthorized PD charge, the WCJ could be required to set it apart as a result of events can’t stipulate to avoid the regulation. Nonetheless, the WCAB in the end decided that there was no mutual mistake nor did the events intentionally stipulate to an unauthorized PD charge. As an alternative, given the course of litigation, the WCAB believed the stipulation entered the report because of inadvertence surrounding the events’ dispute over whether or not Applicant was a seasonal employee, and that it ought to be put aside on that foundation:
… [T]he events clearly didn’t intend to stipulate to applicant’s seasonal standing, as a result of they (1) stipulated to weekly earnings of $554.13 per week with out offering every other proof as to applicant’s incomes capability, and, extra importantly, (2) essentially submitted the query of whether or not applicant was a seasonal employee to the WCJ for choice as a part of the dispute relating to TTD overpayments. [WCAB’s Footnote omitted] Clearly, applicant “didn’t intend to stipulate away [his] case whereas urging it.” (See Burrows v. State (1968) 260 Cal.App.2nd 29; 33, 66 Cal. Rptr. 868 [stipulation that was a result of misunderstanding of the proper application of the governing law did not serve to bar plaintiffs’ case].) Simply as clearly, defendant didn’t intend to stipulate to weekly earnings of $554.13 on the similar time it was contending that applicant was a seasonal employee whose precise incomes capability was a lot decrease, and to whom it had overpaid out of-season TTD advantages.
In brief, it seems that the stipulation can’t moderately be taken at face worth. [WCAB’s Footnote: This interpretation is also reasonably consistent with the Declaration submitted by applicant’s attorney, stating that he intended to stipulate to the fact that defendant had paid PD at $160 per week, not that he agreed that the correct PD rate was $160 per week. (Declaration, at p. 1.) However, we make our ruling based upon the legal reasoning stated herein, and not based upon the contents of the Declaration itself.] It seems to characterize a “fudge” midway between the place of applicant, that he was not a seasonal employee and subsequently had common weekly earnings of $554.13 (and subsequently a PD charge of $290 per week), and the place of defendant, that he was entitled to PD solely on the minimal charge of $160 per week (as a result of he was a seasonal employee with a lot decrease precise incomes capability). Given the WCJ’s dedication that applicant was not a seasonal employee, the stipulation to the $160 per week PD charge is, to once more borrow the phrases of the Burrows Court docket, “nothing however an faulty authorized conclusion which the trial court docket mustn’t have accepted.” (Burrows, supra, 260 Cal. App. 2nd at 34.)
In mild of the above, we consider the WCJ erred in refusing to put aside the stipulation … .
Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Evaluate, asserting in related portion that the WCAB erred to find good trigger to put aside the events’ stipulation to PD charge. Applicant filed an Reply, contending in pertinent half that the WCAB accurately vacated the stipulation as a result of it was entered because of inadvertence surrounding whether or not or not Applicant was a seasonal employee.
WRIT DENIED October 24, 2024.
© Copyright 2025 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.
