Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code 5952
Substantial evidence standard for Appeals Board decisions
An award, order, or decision must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record.
From the decision · page 7As discussed above, the record in this matter regarding the issue of whether applicant is
entitled to be treated, at defendant's expense, by a physician who is not in defendant's MPN is
complex and contains several inconsistencies. An award, order or decision by the Appeals Board
must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (Lab. Code § 5952; Garza
v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317-319 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque
v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635-637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The
Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the record does not
contain substantial evidence or when appropriate to fully adjudicate the issues. (Lab. Code, § 5701,
5906; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924];
McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63
Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) Under the circumstances of this matter, it is appropriate that it be returned
to the trial level for further proceedings. We recommend that the WCJ confer with the parties to
determine how to proceed with further development of the record.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc)
Requirements for apportionment evidence
Medical opinion must disclose familiarity with apportionment concepts, delineate percentages, and explain nature and effect of other factors causing disability.
From the decision · page 7Regarding the issue of apportionment, in order to constitute substantial evidence as to the
issue of apportionment, the medical opinion must disclose the reporting physician's familiarity
with the concepts of apportionment and must delineate the approximate percentages of permanent
disability due to the direct results of the injury and the approximate percentage of permanent
disability due to other factors. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals
Board en banc).) Also, the physician must explain the nature of the other factors, how and why
those factors are causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, and how and why those
factors are responsible for the percentage of disability assigned by the physician. (Id. at 621)
Lab. Code 5701, 5906
Authority to develop record when evidence insufficient
Appeals Board has discretionary authority to develop record when evidence is insufficient to determine an issue.
From the decision · page 7As discussed above, the record in this matter regarding the issue of whether applicant is
entitled to be treated, at defendant's expense, by a physician who is not in defendant's MPN is
complex and contains several inconsistencies. An award, order or decision by the Appeals Board
must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (Lab. Code § 5952; Garza
v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317-319 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque
v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635-637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The
Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the record does not
contain substantial evidence or when appropriate to fully adjudicate the issues. (Lab. Code, § 5701,
5906; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924];
McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63
Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) Under the circumstances of this matter, it is appropriate that it be returned
to the trial level for further proceedings. We recommend that the WCJ confer with the parties to
determine how to proceed with further development of the record.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 9767.10; Lab. Code 4600(d); Lab. Code 4062
MPN Continuity of Care Policy and transfer dispute resolution
Rules governing completion of treatment by terminated providers and transfer of care disputes.
From the decision · page 4Pursuant to Administrative Rule 9767.10, Continuity of Care Policy: