27 Oct 2015

California: Defendant Bound by a Stipulation Due to Unilateral Mistake

WCAB affirms $11,000 windfall for in pro per applicant

In Garcia v. Oxnard School District, 2015 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 492 [2015 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 492], the WCAB, affirming the WCJ’s stipulated award, held that the defendant was bound by a stipulation that the applicant was entitled to permanent disability in the total sum of $36,570.00 based on the presumption that the applicant was entitled to the maximum permanent disability rate of $230.00 per week, notwithstanding that the parties had actually stipulated to the permanent disability rate of $188.40 per week with a 15 percent decrease pursuant to Labor Code § 4658(d) [LC 4658].

[Publisher’s Note: Citations link to lexis.com; bracketed cites link to Lexis Advance.]

The WCAB found that the mistake in the calculation of the permanent disability sum was a unilateral mistake on the part of the defendant. Moreover, the defendant did not file a petition to set aside the stipulated award or request a hearing to provide evidence of good cause to set aside or rescind the award based on a unilateral mistake. Therefore, absent evidence of good cause for mistake, other than the identification of the mistake itself, the stipulation was binding on the defendant and the permanent disability award was proper.

Commentary:

Most workers do not understand or think about workers’ compensation until they are injured. Workers’ compensation, at its most fundamental level, is a “no-fault” benefit program that is administered in large part by private insurance companies. It’s an administrative process perpetuated and inundated with endless, sometimes inconsistent, poorly drafted and often-times redundant regulation.

As a result of the administrative nature of the proceedings, and due to the voluminous number of work related injuries that occur every year, a certain amount of informality is customary in the proceedings. While the amount of informality may vary from one district office to another, customarily, the judicial proceedings that occur in front of the administrative law judges is substantially less formal than one might find at a superior or municipal court.

The problem with this informality is that it tends to allow, if not facilitate, a casualness by the parties who participate in the judicial proceedings. This informality oftentimes leads to a significant lack of attention to details. While this lack of attention to the details usually results in a loss of benefits to the injured worker, it also sometimes results in a defendant having to pay more than they are otherwise legally required to.

This was precisely the situation in this case. Here, a defendant submitted stipulations to a workers’ compensation judge that provided the in pro per injured worker with approximately $11,000 more than she was legally entitled to. Defendant sought the rescission of the award and the panel of commissioners basically said no, what occurred was a unilateral mistake, you failed to pay attention to the details, and you are bound by your stipulation.

While a different panel of commissioners could have easily found that both parties had made a mistake here, and while a different panel could have easily let the defendant out of the stipulation, this panel did not. It appears this panel may have wanted to convey that, at the end of the day, the workers’ compensation system is an important system dealing with valuable benefits and despite its lack of formality, the practitioners should pay attention to what they are doing.

Read the Garcia noteworthy panel decision.