Here's something about a timeline that I didn't previously know anything about. (Though that's perhaps not surprising, since I don't do workers' compensation cases.)
If you don't like how the Workers' Compensation Board decides your case, you can file a petition for reconsideration. That's not surprising; many tribunals have a similar principle. Since it's California, the statute also gives a timeline not only for filing such petitions, but for the Board to act on them as well. The Board has 60 days to rule on the petition for reconsideration, and if it doesn't do anything during this time period, the petition is deemed denied.
Again, not unusual.
But the Board often feels like taking more time than the statutory 60 days. So here's what it does: During the 60 day period, it files a boilerplate "grant for study" order. These orders all say the exact same thing:
“Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration will be granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.”
How often does it do this, you might ask? A lot. Between 2015 and 2019, the Board entered these orders in response to 19% (roughly a fifth) of petitions for reconsideration. And during the COVID years, the Board entered these orders in response to 38.5% of petitions (i.e., over 3/8th of petitions).
That's a neat little trick to get more time. (Notwithstanding a Legislative mandate.) Moreover, the Board has been using this trick for some time; at least since 1913. Finally, by "more time," we're talking about a fair piece of time in addition to the statutory 60 days. "The time between the filing of the grant-for-study orders and the Board’s final decisions ranged from five to 21 months."
Nonetheless, the trick used by the Board works. Except for one problem. The statute also says that any grant of a petition "shall state the evidence relied upon and specify in detail the reasons for the decision." Technically, grant for study orders involve "granting" the petition, but does the boilerplate statement accompanying these grants sufficiently state the evidence and reasons for the decision?
The Court of Appeal says: "No." Rubber stamp explanation aren't good enough. You have to actually give reasons. Particularized ones.
Which does seem to me what the statute requires. Though I might have taken a different view if the Board was only doing stuff like this in, say, one case in a hundred (or thousand). Then the rubber stamp that the Board currently uses might be good enough for me.
Let me add one more thing, though. I thought that it was somewhat funny (ironic?) that the Court of Appeal was being so strict about the relevant statutory timeline here given that it routinely uses a very similar trick to avoid the statutory deadlines imposed on it by the Legislature. As most of you know, the California Constitution (and a supporting statute) requires that judges decide cases within 90 days of their submission, on penalty of the judge not receiving their salary. So how do state court appellate judges solve this problem? By taking however long they want to "tentatively" decide a case and write an opinion, and then only "submitting" the case on the eventual date of oral argument. Deadline solved, even if the appeal itself drags on for years and years and years.
Oh, and on occasion, when there's been an oral argument and the 90 day clock is about to expire, state court judges sometimes do what happened here: They simply "reset" the clock by vacating submission and resubmitting the case sua sponte. With a boilerplate order that looks awfully similar to what we are insulting the Board for doing in this opinion. ("Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.256(e)(1), submission of the above entitled matter is hereby vacated and the cause resubmitted as of this date for the period allowed by law, in order to allow the panel additional time to consider the presently circulating opinion.")
In short: Do what we say, not necessarily what we ourselves (basically) do.
With the caveat that, yeah, technically, that's what the statute says.
