What the panel ordered
April 5, 2022 Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and new decision
Petitions for Reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Findings and Order granted; April 5, 2022 Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and new decision
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ did not address all issues submitted, requiring reconsideration and further proceedings to determine if applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant seek reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that, in ADJ1104582, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his back and feet on September 10, 2017, and, in ADJ11048583, applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his jaw, mouth teeth and shoulders on September 10, 2017.1 The WCJ also found that the reporting of Dr. Schames was not substantial medical evidence. Although cases ADJ1104582 and ADJ1104583 were consolidated together with ADJ13630518, the Findings and Order does not address whether applicant sustained an industrial injury in ADJ13630518, a claim for a cumulative trauma injury through September 15, 2017 to applicant's back, shoulder and foot. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his claims in ADJ1104582 and ADJ11048583.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ did not address whether applicant sustained an industrial injury in ADJ13630518, a claim for cumulative trauma injury through September 15, 2017.
Favours neutral
This omission required the Appeals Board to rescind the prior order and return the matter for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant seek reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that, in ADJ1104582, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his back and feet on September 10, 2017, and, in ADJ11048583, applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his jaw, mouth teeth and shoulders on September 10, 2017.1 The WCJ also found that the reporting of Dr. Schames was not substantial medical evidence. Although cases ADJ1104582 and ADJ1104583 were consolidated together with ADJ13630518, the Findings and Order does not address whether applicant sustained an industrial injury in ADJ13630518, a claim for a cumulative trauma injury through September 15, 2017 to applicant's back, shoulder and foot. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his claims in ADJ1104582 and ADJ11048583.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Reporting of Dr. Schames was found not to constitute substantial medical evidence by the WCJ.
The WCJ found that the reporting of Dr. Schames was not substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant seek reconsideration of the April 5, 2022 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that, in ADJ1104582, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his back and feet on September 10, 2017, and, in ADJ11048583, applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his jaw, mouth teeth and shoulders on September 10, 2017.1 The WCJ also found that the reporting of Dr. Schames was not substantial medical evidence. Although cases ADJ1104582 and ADJ1104583 were consolidated together with ADJ13630518, the Findings and Order does not address whether applicant sustained an industrial injury in ADJ13630518, a claim for a cumulative trauma injury through September 15, 2017 to applicant's back, shoulder and foot. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his claims in ADJ1104582 and ADJ11048583.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5313
Labor Code section 5313 requires the WCJ to make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties.
The WCJ failed to determine all issues submitted, necessitating reconsideration and further proceedings.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code section 5313 requires the WCJ to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and [make and file] an award, order or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties." Therefore, we must rescind the April 5, 2022 Findings and Order and return this matter to the WCJ for further development of the record, further proceedings, and to issue a decision on all issues submitted.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.