“The workers’ compensation system “was intended to afford a simple and nontechnical path to relief.””
(Perez, supra, at p. 9, quoting Elkins v. Derby (1974) 12 Cal.3d 410, 419.)
“Generally, “the informality of pleadings in workers' compensation proceedings before the Board has been recognized.””
(Perez, supra, at p. 9, quoting Zurich Ins. Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 848, 852.)
““[I]t is an often-stated principle that the Act disfavors application of formalistic rules of procedure that would defeat an employee's entitlement to rehabilitation benefits.””
(Martino v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 485, 490, as quoted in Perez, supra, at p. 9.)
“Courts have repeatedly rejected pleading technicalities as grounds for depriving the Board of jurisdiction.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 9, citing Rubio v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 196, 200–201; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 148, 152–153.)
““Necessarily, failure to comply with the rules as to details is not jurisdictional.””
(Rubio, supra, at pp. 200–201, as quoted in Perez, supra, at p. 9; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10517.)
“Therefore, in workers’ compensation proceedings, it is settled law that (1) pleadings may be informal. (Zurich Ins. Co., supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 852; Beaida v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 204, 207– 210 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 345]); (2) claims should be adjudicated based on substance rather than form (Bland, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 328–334; Martino, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 491; (3) pleadings should liberally construed so as not to defeat or undermine an injured employee's right to make a claim (Sarabi v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th at pp. 925–926 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 778]); Martino, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 490; and (4) technically deficient pleadings, if they give notice and are timely, normally do not deprive the Board of jurisdiction (Bland, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 331–332).”
(Perez, supra, at p. 9 [internal citations in original].)
“These principles of liberal pleading are further reflected in section 5506, which authorizes the Appeals Board to relieve a defendant from default or dismissal due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 473.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 9.)
“the Court of Appeal has made it clear that the protections afforded under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) are applicable in workers’ compensation proceedings.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 10, citing Fox v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1196.)
“WCAB Rule 10617 provides for considerable latitude in accepting nonstandard pleadings, so long as the pleadings contain “a combination of information sufficient to establish the case or cases to which the document relates or, if it is a case opening document, sufficient information to open an adjudication file.””
(Perez, supra, at p. 10, quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10617(b).)
“Similarly, WCAB Rule 10517 specifies that pleadings are deemed amended to conform to the stipulations agreed to by the parties on the record or may be amended by the Appeals Board to conform to proof.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 10, citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10517.)
“The principles of liberal pleading and amendment of pleadings to conform to proof outlined above mean that any petition should be considered on its merits and not based on its title.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 10.)
“In workers’ compensation proceedings, pleadings are liberally construed and may be amended to conform to proof.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 6.)
“Therefore, based on these principles, interpretation of our rules must necessarily incorporate California’s public policy in favor of adjudication of claims on their merits, rather than on the technical sufficiency of the pleadings.”
(Perez, supra, at p. 10.)
“WCAB Rule 10515 specifically disallows “[d]emurrers, petitions for judgment on the pleadings and petitions for summary judgment.””
(Perez, supra, at p. 10, quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.)
Cross-references: § 16.2 (identification of parties); § 17.1 (informality of evidence: §§ 5708–5709); § 20.3 (petitions judged by substance, not title); § 21.3 (relief from default: § 5506).
← § 16.2 · § 16.9 → · this section in the book