We granted Angela Howard’s application for discretionary appeal in this workers’ compensation case. Howard appeals a superior court order affirming the decision of the appellate division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation “Board” to adopt the award of the administrative law judge “ALJ”, denying her claim for disability income benefits arising from an accident that occurred during her employment with Peachbelt Health and Rehabilitation Center “Peachbelt”. Key Risk Insurance Company, as the insurer for Peachbelt, was also a party to this suit. Howard sought benefits with respect to two accident dates: June 12, 2009 and July 16, 2009. Benefits were denied with respect to both dates. On appeal, Howard contends the superior court erred in affirming the Board’s award concerning the July 16, 2009 accident because: 1 in reaching a decision, the ALJ failed to accept a stipulation by the parties; and 2 Peachbelt’s asserted defense was precluded because at the time of the accident, Peachbelt knew that Howard had a pre-existing medical condition. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the superior court’s judgment as to the July 16, 2009 accident, with direction that the case be remanded to the Board.
1. Howard argues that in reaching a decision, the ALJ erroneously failed to accept a stipulation made by the parties that she suffered an injury from the July 16, 2009 accident; and because she had no notice that the ALJ would not accept the stipulation, she was denied the opportunity to introduce evidence showing injury from the July 16, 2009 accident. Peachbelt denies stipulating that Howard “suffered a compensable accident or injury arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment on July 16, 2009.” As a factfinder, the Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation is authorized to assess witness credibility, weigh conflicting evidence, and draw factual conclusions different from those reached by the ALJ who initially heard the dispute. So long as there is some evidence to support the State Board’s decision, findings of fact by the State Board are conclusive and binding on reviewing courts, and judges lack authority to set aside an award based on disagreement with the Board’s conclusions. However, erroneous applications of law to undisputed facts, as well as decisions based on erroneous theories of law, are subject to the de novo standard of review in superior court and on appeal to this court.1 “A stipulation is any agreement made by attorneys respecting business before the court. . . .”2 “A stipulation by the parties upon which a resolution of some issue is to be made is binding.”3 During the hearing, the ALJ stated the following:
